oERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
State-of-the-Art
Study of Land
Impoundment
Techniques
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are.
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research.and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-78-196
December 1978
STATE-OF-THE-ART STUDY OF
LAND IMPOUNDMENT TECHNIQUES
Wilford S. Stewart
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
Linden, New Jersey 07036
Grant No. R-803585
Project Officers
Richard B. Tabakin and Mary K. Stinson
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial 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 publication,
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.
ii
-------
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, foul water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complex-
ity 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 preventing, treating, and managing waste-
water and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and
community sources, for preserving and treating public drinking water supplies,
and for minimizing the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects
of pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research, a
most vital communication link between the researcher and the user community.
Within EPA, this information will be of value to the R&D industrial pro-
gram for all industries and to such groups as the Office of Solid Waste and
the Office of Toxic Substances. This report will be very useful to the indus-
try itself, since such an assembly of information is not readily available
elsewhere.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a literature search and state-of-the-
art survey of liner materials utilized in land impoundment sites for the con-
tainment of seven general types of industrial wastes: (l) caustic petroleum
sludge, (2) acidic steel-pickling waste, (3) electroplating sludge, (4) toxic
pesticide formulations, (5) oily refinery sludge, (6) toxic pharmaceutical
waste, and (7) rubber and plastic waste. The objectives of the study were to
assemble the available information concerning the chemical and physical prop-
erties, cost, and. field performance of various liner materials. Data ob-
tained from the literature search were supplemented with information from
various materials producers, liner manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers, in-
stallers, consultants, and trade association representatives.
In addition, the report contains an engineering analysis of the compati-
bility of the liner materials and the industrial wastes of interest. From
this analysis, preliminary recommendations are made concerning the suitability
of the liner materials for containing the specified industrial wastes.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-803585 by Exxon
Research and Engineering Company under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Work was originally completed as of May 31, 1975f but
the report has been edited and revised by Matrecon, Inc., to update the
conclusions (1978) by reflecting the findings of ongoing work, particularly
in the two research contracts, EPA 68-03-213*)- and EPA 68-03-2173, Additional
references have been added to the bibliography as well.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword. ill
Abstract iv
Tables vi
Acknowledgments viii
1. Introduction ............................ 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations . 6
4-. Flexible Membrane Liners for Impoundment Sites 7
5. Asphalt Materials as Liners for Impoundment Sites 29
6. Soil Sealant Liners for Impoundment Sites • • 37
7. Natural Soil Systems as Liners for Impoundment Sites ........ te
8. Chemical Characterization of the Industrial Wastes 4-5
9. Compatibility of Liner Materials and Industrial Wastes 57
References , 60
Bibliography 63
Appendices 67
A. New pond/pit liner system 67
B. Manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers, and installers of
liner materials. . 68
C. Lists of case histories of landfill impoundment sites 70
D. Soil cement contracts for water control 74
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Liner/Industrial Waste Compatibilities ............... 5
2 General Properties of Flexible Membrane Liner Materials ....... 9
3 Chemical Resistance of Various Pond Liners to 100$ Ethyl Alcohol . . 10
4 Chemical Resistance of Oil-Resistant Type J11B PVC ......... 11
5 Formulations and Physical Properties for Typical Vulcanized
Compounds of Several Common Elastomers . . ............. 12
6 Technical Data - Butyl Rubber Sheeting
? Chemical Resistance of Compound Based on Intermediate Unsaturation
Butyl Rubber ............................ 15
8 Chemical Resistance of Vulcanized Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene
Compound .......... . ................ ... 20
9 Chemical Resistance of Vistalon 6505 Compound. ........... 21
10 Costs of Installed Flexible Membrane Liners in 1973 ......... 28
11 Suggested Mix Compositions for Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete
Linings. .............................. 30
12 Tentative Specifications for Asphalt for Hydraulic Membrane
Construction .................. . ......... 32
13 Chemicals Resisted by Unmodified Asphalt .............. 34-
1*J- Costs of Various Asphalt Liner Materials .............. 35
15 Representative Soil Sealants ..... ............... 39
16 Influence of Compaction on Rate of Seepage through Soil Treated
with Sealant ............................ ^K)
1? Influence of Water Composition on Rate of Seepage through Soil
Treated with Sealant ........................ *K)
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
18 Comparative Performance of Bentonite and Saline Seal Bentonite
in a Soil Test 43
19 Caustic Petroleum Sludge Sources and Composition 46
20 Ranges of Concentrations and Total Quantities for Refinery Solid
Waste Sources 48
21 Pickle Line Scrubber Discharge , . 50
22 Pickler Tank Overflow 50
23 Chromium- and Cyanide-Bearing Wastes from Typical Plating Operations
in the Electroplating Industry 51
24 Approximate Concentrations of Wastewater Constituents Before and
After Treatment from a Typical Facility Electroplating Copper,
Nickel, Chromium, and Zinc 52
25 Summary of Potential Process-Associated Wastewater Sources from
Pesticide Formula tors and Packagers. 54
26 Raw Waste Constituents from the Pharmaceutical Industry 55
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Valuable assistance was provided by personnel of the liner manufacturers,
fabricators, suppliers, installers, consultants, and trade association. Sub-
stantial information and assistance was received from George S. Thompson,
Richard B. Tabakin, Mary K. Stinson, and Donald Wilson of the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, and from Rosa Raskin of the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. R.R. Bertrand of Exxon Research was the manager of the
project under which this study was conducted.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of a state-of-the-art study of various
liner materials utilized in land impoundment sites for the containment of
seven general types of industrial waste. The objectives of the study were to
assemble information concerning the chemical and physical properties, cost,
and field performance of various liner materials as well as any other perti-
nent data to determine or estimate their suitability for containing specific,
representative industrial wastes. In addition, an engineering evaluation was
conducted so that recommendations could be made concerning the compatibility
of these liner materials and the industrial wastes specified. Ultimately,
these evaluations contribute to the determination of preferential liner mate-
rials that can be used in specific land impoundment situations.
Information was sought concerning the following commercially available
liner materials:
1. Flexible membrane liners and fabric-reinforced (nylon, dacron, glass fiber)
flexible membrane liners:
a. Polyvinylchloride (PVC)
b. Polyethylene (PE)
c. Polypropylene
d. Butyl rubber
e. Chlorinated polyethylene (CPE)
f. Ethylene propylene rubber (EPEM)
g. Chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon)
h. Neoprene
2. Admixed materials:
a. Asphalt concrete
b. Soil cement
c. Soil asphalt
d. Sprayed asphalt membranes
3. Soil sealants:
a. Rubber latex
b. Bituminous sealcoat
4. Natural soil systems:
a. Soil bentonite
b. Compacted clays
-------
The general categories of industrial wastes considered for containment
in these liner materials were:
1. Caustic petroleum sludge
2. Acidic steel-pickling waste
3. Heavy-metal-bearing electroplating sludge
b. Toxic pesticide-formulation waste
5. Oily refinery sludge
6. Toxic pharmaceutical waste
7. Wastes from rubber and plastics industries
Information used in the preparation of this report was obtained from
extensive literature searches; trade and industry associations; raw materials
producers; manufacturers; fabricators, suppliers, and installers of liners;
and interviews and discussions with various consultants, industry personnel,
and trade association representatives.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information gathered during the course of this study, the
following conclusions have been formulated:
1. The literature contains few meaningful engineering and performance data
on which to "base an engineering analysis of lined land impoundment sites
that contain the industrial wastes of interest. Most of the literature
referred to commercial-type articles describing potable water installa-
tions, sewage lagoons, and brine evaporating ponds; or it simply mentioned
the existence of industrial waste retention ponds without presenting any
engineering or performance data.
2. The liner materials have been characterized to some extent in the litera-
ture—most notably in information available from the various manufactur-
ers, fabricators, suppliers, installers, and trade associations. Manu-
facturers and fabricators in particular do make available information
concerning the chemical, physical, and mechanical properties of the
specific materials that they either manufacture or formulate. Therefore,
substantial information is available on the chemical and physical proper-
ties, material costs, and installation methods and costs.
3. In a number of instances, information concerning the complete characteri-
zation of a specific or representative industrial waste in terms of major
chemical components and the concentrations of the components appeared
either to be unavailable or reported in terms such as biochemical oxygen
demand (BODjj) , chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOG) ,
etc. Such characterizations do not supply sufficient information to make
realistic liner/waste compatibility predictions. Thus the analyses pre-
sented in Section 9 are a~t best approximations based on the best available
chemical characterization data.
*K The selection of a liner material for an impoundment site that will con-
tain one of the representative industrial wastes listed in Table 1 should
involve the following considerations:
a. The liner material should satisfactorily resist attack from all
chemicals (solvents, oils, greases, etc.), ozone, ultraviolet radia-
tion, soil bacteria, mold, fungus, and vegetation to which it will be
exposed. Resistance can be determined by laboratory testing of the
liner material in the industrial waste that the liner will contain.
b. The liner material should have ample weather resistance to withstand
the stresses associated with wetting and drying, freezing and thawing,
-------
and periodic shifts of the earth as dictated by the geographic loca-
tion of the impoundment site.
c. The liner material should have adequate physical properties to with-
stand the stresses of installation and damage from machinery or
equipment.
d. The liner material should resist laceration, abrasion, and puncture
from any matter that may be found in the fluids that it will contain.
e. The liner material should be easily reparable at any time during its
life (particularly when repairs are feasible), and it should be the
most economical material that can adequately fill the specific appli-
cation .
f. The liner material should be properly installed. Improper installa-
tion of even the best material will defeat the purpose of the lining.
g. To provide longer life and protection against mechanical damage and
weathering, all flexible membrane liner materials, both exposable and
unexposable, should be covered, if possible, with a layer of sand or
fine-textured soil.
h. Proper filling and maintenance of the liner and impoundment site should
be practiced.
-------
TABLE 1. LINER/INDUSTRIAL WASTE COMPATIBILITIES
Caustic
Petroleum
Liner Material Sludge
Polyvinylchloride
(oil resistant)
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Butyl Rubber
Chlorinated Poly-
ethylene
Ethylene Propyl-
ene Rubber
Hypalon
Asphalt Concrete
Soil Cement
Soil Asphalt
Asphalt Membranes
Soil Betitonite
(Saline Seal)
Compacted Clays
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
P
P
Industrial Waste*
Acidic
Steel- Toxic Oily Toxic Rubber
Pickling Electroplating Pesticide Refinery Pharmaceutical and
Waste Sludge Formulations Sludge Waste Plastic
F
F
G
G
F
G
G
F
P
P
F
P
P
F
F
G
G
F
G
G
F
P
P
F
P
P
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
G
G
G
F
G
P
P
P
P
P
G
P
P
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
*p=poor, F=>fair, G=good.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Perhaps the most important sources of engineering and performance data on
liner materials for industrial wastes are the installers of the liner
materials and the owners of the lined industrial waste ponds. During the
course of this study, contact was made with a number of installers. Re-
sponse to requests for specific information was very poor, probably
because of the time and manpower required to assemble the information
requested. Installers should therefore be contacted again to determine
if they have been responsible for constructing impoundment sites that
contain the industrial wastes of interest. Information requests should
then be limited to items such as: (a) location of the installation,
(b) owner of the installation site, and (c) type of industrial waste
contained. Subsequent field trips to the installation site and discus-
sion with the owner(s) of the site would probably result in the develop-
ment of a substantial number of case histories on the liner materials
already utilized in impoundment sites and on the industrial wastes con-
tained.
2. Since the industrial wastes in each of the categories of interest are
generally composed of a wide variety of chemical constituents, a more
complete description of the industrial waste should be obtained by peri-
odically requesting all industries that generate these wastes to submit
detailed analyses of all waste streams discharged from their plants.
Convenient forms should be designed to permit computer logging, retrieval,
and analysis of the submitted data. The important analytical parameters
should be specified to insure that the manufacturer is aware of the compo-
sition of the waste discharge and the potential each component has for
producing environmental stress.
3- To assure the ultimate success and maximum performance of industrial
waste impoundment sites, different lining materials must be tested with
the individual industrial wastes of interest. Factors to be considered
should include liner deterioration upon prolonged contact with the indus-
trial waste of interest and alterations in the permeability of liner
material to the waste over time.
-------
SECTION 4
FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS FOR IMPOUNDMENT SITES
INTRODUCTION
Liner materials for impoundment sites that contain industrial waste
should be: (l) impermeable to wastes, (2) durable, (3) flexible over a wide
range of temperatures, (4) resistant to chemical, biological, and mechanical
damage, weathering, and deterioration, (5) low in cost, and (6) easy to in-
stall.
Traditionally, ponds, pits, lagoons, and reservoirs that have been used
for waste disposal, brine evaporation, potable water storage, drilling mud,
and industrial waste storage have often been lined to prevent the excessive
seepage of liquids into the ground. Clay or bentonite, wood, concrete, gyp-
sum, asphalt, and metal linings have been used for many years.-'- Some of these
materials do not possess all of the desired properties listed above. More
recently, however, a different class of impervious lining materials has been
developed—flexible synthetic membranes.
The most important advantages of flexible synthetic membrane liners for
the containment of industrial waste are their ability to contain a wide vari-
ety of fluids with a minimum of loss from permeation and seepage, their high
resistance to chemical and bacterial deterioration, and their relative ease
and economy of installation and maintenance.
Major disadvantages include the relative vulnerability of some liners to
ozone and ultraviolet deterioration as compared with hard surface liners.If2
Their ability to withstand the stresses of heavy machinery is limited compared
with concrete or asphalt. Also, they are comparatively susceptible to lacera-
tion, abrasion, and puncture from sharp objects such as metal chips, stones,
tree roots, etc. Some membrane materials are prone to crack and crease at
extremely low temperatures and to stretch and distort at extremely high
temperature s.1»2
FLEXIBLE POLYMERIC SYNTHETIC MEMBRANES
A number of snythetic lining materials based on rubbers and plastics are
currently on the market to suit different purposes and conditions.
Variations in the formulations of both types of materials can result in
liners that will be better suited to a specific application than other liners
-------
of the same polymeric material. For example, there are several producers of
polyvinylchloride (PVC), one of the widely used polymers in the manufacture
of membrane liners. These producers sell the basic PVG to liner manufacturers
who add various materials such as plasticizers, resins, fungicides, biocides,
etc. to achieve specific properties. They process the PVG by rolling or cal-
endering the compounded PVG into large sheets, which are joined or seamed into
larger sections and ultimately sold to suppliers and/or installers. The chem-
ical and physical properties of the resulting sheet material can therefore
differ markedly from those of the original base polymer.
Flexible membrane liners can be classified as exposable and unexposable.
Exposable membranes are formulated from materials that resist ozone and ultra-
violet exposure for long periods of time. In the exposable materials category
are the synthetic rubbers: butyl (isobutylene isoprene rubber), EPDM (ethyl-
ene propylene rubber), Hypalon (chlorosulfonated polyethylene), and neoprene
(chloroprene rubber). Unexposable membranes include PVG (polyvinylchloride),
polyethylene, and polypropylene. While these membranes do not resist ozone
and ultraviolet attack as well as exposable membranes, they can be expected to
provide satisfactory service in many applications, particularly if covered by
a protective layer of soil.l»3 The service life of most exposable liners can
be expected to range from 20 to 25 years or longer under normal atmospheric
exposure, while unexposable liners could only be expected to perform satis-
factorily for 10 to 15 years under similar conditions.l»3
Designation as exposable or unexposable does not necessarily indicate
that one group or the other has superior physical properties for all applica-
tions. An unexposable liner may have chemical resistance qualities that would
adapt to a specific application as well as or better than an exposable mate-
rial. The typical properties of these materials are discussed as follows and
outlined in Table 2. Additional specific chemical resistance data for some
liner materials are shown in Tables 3 through 9. Note that severe chemical
attack of the liner material results in dramatic loss in the liner's physical
properties. In an impoundment site, such dramatic losses, particularly in
tensile strength, can result in failure of the liner.
PROPERTY PROFILES OF MATERIALS USED IN LINER MANUFACTURE
The following are typical property profiles of some of the more commonly
used polymeric liner materials. These basic materials may be used by more than
one manufacturer to produce a variety of trade-named liners. Also, each manu-
facturer may incorporate variations of these materials, such as added plasti-
cizers for greater flexibility, scrims to increase tensile strength, and a
variety of resins to increase resistance to specific chemicals or to improve
impermeability. It is therefore very important that considerations in the
selection of a flexible membrane liner for an impoundment site that will con-
tain industrial waste begin with the basic materials.
Butyl is a highly reliable synthetic rubber with more than 20 years of
field service in the storage of potable water. Butyl rubber has good resistance
8
-------
TABLK 2. GiMKKAL PROPERTIES OF FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER MATERIALS'*
Polyethylene
Property
Specific Gravity
Tensile Strength, psi
Elongation, %
Shore "A" Hardness
Operating Temperature
Range, F
Resistance to Acids
Resistance to Bases
Resistance to
Oxygenated Solvents
Resistance to Aromatic
and Halogenated Solvents
Resistance to Aliphatic
(Petroleum) Solvents
Water Vapor Permeability,
perm-mils
Weatherability
Time to Crack, hr
Time to Chalk, hr
Time to Fade, hr
Low Density
0.92-0.94
1,300-2,500
200-800
@
-70 to 180
P-G
G-E
P-G
F-G
F-G
3-14
P-w/o black
900
No effect to
2,500
300
High Density
0.9*4-0.96
2,400-4,800
10-650
@
-70 to 240
G
G-E
P-G
F-G
F-G
1.8-2.2
P-w/o black
300
600
300
Polyvinyl
Chloride*
1.24-1.30
2,500-3,500
250-350
65-75
-60 to 200
G-E
G-E
G
G
G
3-18
P-F
No crack
to 2,500
300
100
Chlorinated
Polyethylene
1-35-1.39
1,800 min
375-575
65-75
-40 to 200
G-E
G-E
P
P
G
0.04-0.048
E
No effect
to 4,000
No effect
to 4,000
No effect
to 4,000
Poly-
propylene
0.9-0.91
4,000-32,000
40-400
-60 to 220
G-E
G-E
P
G
G
0.25-1.0
P-w/o black
100
600
900
Butyl
Rubber
0.92-1.25
1,000-4,000
300 min
45-80
-50 to 325
G
G
G-E
P
P
0.15
G
No effect
after 2,500
No effect
after 2,500
No effect
after 2,500
Ethylene-Propylene
Hypalon Rubber (EPIM)
1.4-1.5
1,000-2,000
300-500
55-95
-45 to 200
G
G-E
G
F
G
2.0
E
No effect
after 1,000
No effect
after 1,000
No effect
after 1,000
1.15-1.21
1,300-1,500
300 min
50-70
-75 to 300
G-E
G-E
G-E
P
P
2.0
E
No effect
after 1,000
No effect
after 1,000
No effect
after 1,000
*Adapted from Reference 1.
#Plasticized PVC.
®Data not shown were unavailable. P=poor, F=fair, G=good, E=excellent. ASTM test methods for various properties! specific gravity,
D-751; tensile strength, D-97-6lT[ elongation, D-412-61T or D-882; shore "A" hardness, D-676-59T; water vapor permeability, £-96-66.
-------
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL RESISTANCE OF VARIOUS POND LINERS TO 100%
ETHYL ALCOHOL*//
Property
Tensile Strength (psi)@
100% Modulus (psi)@
Ultimate Elongation (%)@
Graves Tear (Ib/in.)
Weight Change (%):+
Absorption
Extraction
Time
(days)
0
7
28
0
7
28
0
7
28
0
7
28
7
28
7
28
Vina-
liner
(PVC)
2281
-2.8
-0.5
1124
14.8
46.0
425
2.1
-6.8
234
38
54
-11.4
-15.2
-16.1
-19.2
Vina-
liner,
Gil
Resistant
2610
-11.2
- 5.2
1406
-22.0
- 5.3
404
12.4
7.9
310
- 4
r 14
- 2.4
- 6.9
- 8.8
-12.1
Poly-
liner
(CPE)
1649
-17.5
-18.9
527
70.4
74.0
651
16.7
2.1
183
- 19
- 18
1.1
1.4
- 0.3
- 0.5
Hydro -
liner
.(Hypalon)
1167
-21.8
12.5
433
-18.9
-12.7
1008
- 7.4
-24.6
230
- 17
- 10
1.7
3.5
- 0.4
- 0.4
Dri-
liner
(Butyl Rubber)
869
-15.5
-18.0
211
-11.4
-11.8
552
-10.3
-10.7
156
- 9
2
- 0.6
- O.J
- 0.8
- 2.2
*Goodyear technical literature.
#A11 property values for Days 7 and 28 are expressed as the percent change from the value on Day 0.
All specimens were 30 gauge (mil) except Driliner, which was 60.
@ASTM Test D882 (Method A) was used, but the rate of travel was 12 in./rain instead of 20 in./min. All
samples were blotted dry and brought to room temperature before being tested.
•^Samples were dried for 6 hr at 158 F, for 1 hr at 212 F, and for 16 hr at room temperature before
being tested.
-------
TABLE 4. CHEMICAL RESISTANCE OF OIL-RESISTANT TYPE J11B PVC*
/Original Properties
L T
Time (days)
Temperature of Test
Volume Change (%)
Weight Change (%)
Elongation (%) 370 350
Modulus 100% 1800 1600
Tensile (psi) 3380 2930
Hardness Change (pts.)
Hexane
28
@
1.38
-3.20
400
930
2380
-8
Ethanol
28
@
-10.91
-9.09
410
1270
2350
+2
Glacial
28
@
-8.30
-7.31
390
2090
2490
+8
*Goodyear technical literature.
//All age testing in transverse direction only.
@Room temperature.
-------
ro
TABLE 5, FORMULATIONS AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR TYPICAL
#
VULCANIZED COMPOUNDS OF SEVERAL COMMON ELASTOMERS
Polymer Type
Grade
Compounds i
Polymer
SRF Black
MPC Black
FEF Black
Flexon 765 Oil
Flexon #40 Oil
Flexon 580 Oil
Zinc Oxide4"
Stearic Acid
Magnesium Oxide
Cure Systems:
Di-Cup *«) HAF
Sulfur
Accelerators**
Polymer, wt %
Cure Time
at 320 F, min
#
Butyl
Intermediate
Unsaturation
100
50
20
__
5
—
__
5
1.0
—
—
1.5
TDEDC 1.5
MBTS 1.0
53.76
30
u
Butyl
Low
Unsaturation
.100
50
20
__
5
—
__
5
1.0
—
—
2.0
TDEDC 2.0
MBTS 1.0
ZDBDC 1.0
53.19
30
Chlorinated
Butyl-
Chloro"butyl
1066
100
50
20
—
5
—
__
5
1.0
—
—
1.25
DPTTS 1.25
53.90
30
EPM
Vistalon
404
100
50
20
—
5
—
—
5
—
1.0
7.0
0.3
53.11
30
#
EPDM
High
Mooney
EPDM#
(Highly
loaded)
High
Mooney
Chlorosul-
fonated
Polyethylene
Viscosity Viscosity Hypalon 40
100
50
20
~
25
—
—
5
1.0
—
—
1.5
TMTDS 1.5
MBTS 0.5
48.90
30
100
—
—
200
—
—
100
5
1.0
—
—
1.5
TMTDS 1.5
MBTS 0.5
24.42
30
100
50
20
—
5
—
5
, —
—
—
—
—
DPTTS 1.0
MBTS 0 . 5
PbO 20
54.49
20
See footnotes at end of tattle.
-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
Polymer Type
#
Butyl
I
2PEM # Chlorosul-
£ Chlorinated ^ (Highly fonated ^
Butyl
Butyl EPM EPDM- loaded) Polyethylene
Grade
Intermediate Low Chlorobutyl
Unsaturation Unsaturation 1066
High
Vistalon Mooney Mooney
404 Viscosity Viscosity Hypalon 40
Original Physical
Properties
Hardness, Shore A
Tensile Strength
67
62
60
58
63
78
80
psi
Elongation, %
1660
510
1860
700
1980
420
2030
520
2170
350
1400
190
3590
210
Exxon Elastomers/Chemical Resistance Handbook.
Exxon elastomers conforming to the generic polymer classifications listed above are:
Butyl rubber, intermediate unsaturation Exxon butyl 268
Butyl rubber, low unsaturation Exxon butyl 065
EPDM, high Mooney viscosity Vistalon 4608
@
Generally formulated without curative when used in manufacture of liners.
+ Zinc oxide is added with the curatives in the Ghlorobutyl and polychloroprene compounds
#*,
Abbreviations:
DPTTS Dipen tame thylenethiuram tetrasulf ide
MBTS Benzothiazyl disulfide
PbO Lead oxide
TDEDG Tellurium diethyldithiocarbamate
TMTDS Tetramethylthiuram disulf ide
ZDBDG Zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate
-------
TABLE 6. TECHNICAL DATA - BUTYL RUBBER SHEETING^
Impermeability. The water permeability factor for Butyl rubber is 0.119 perms
per mil thickness. If Butyl is assigned an index of 1.0, other materials have
these relative values:
Butyl 1.0
Polyethylene 1.9
Polyvinylchloride 59.0
(plasticized)
Water vapor transmission
Material Thickness Permeance
(in,) (perm or grain/hr x sq ft x in, Hg)
Polyvinylchloride Sheeting 0.055 0.11
Commercial Butyl Sheeting 0.063 0.00
(Test CR 67-16, Pennsylvania State University)
Flexibility. Functional over a temperature range of 20 to 250 F; does not
become stiff or brittle with age.
Elasticity. Will elongate 300% min. and recover over the functional temp.
Durability. Resistant to tearing, flex cracking, and abrasion. Concrete is
often poured directly over membrane, exercising only normal precaution against
equipment damage. Slip sheets should be used in concrete/asphalt sandwich con-
struction. Should membrane be punctured, it may be cold patched just as a tire
innertube is repaired.
Age resistance. Outdoor exposure in water management use by the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture shows no evidence of degradation after 20 years of service.
Life expectancy. 20 years and more, based upon known data.
Weight per 100 ft2 (* 2 Ib) 38 Ib (l/l6 in. thick).
Coefficient of lineal expansion. 0.65 x 10"^" per degree F.
Coefficient of heat transfer. 2.15 BTU/(hr) (ft2) (°F/in.)
Precaution. When splice areas are cleaned with solvent, prolonged contact with
skin and inhalation of the vapors are to be avoided. The solvent used for
cleaning and the solvent cement must be allowed to evaporate before the joint is
closed and rolled. The time required to do this will vary with humidity and
temperature, but it is necessary to prevent blistered and, consequently, weak
joint structures. Excess or the wrong solvent can wrinkle sheeting and inhibit
good splicing.
Butyl rubber is not recommended for use in prolonged contact with gasoline or
other petroleum-based solvents.
Installed costs are related to project design, but depending upon locality and
thickness specified, can vary from $.40 to $.80/ft in simple application.
Remedial work, special shapes, and extraordinary conditions (prefabricated
fittings, large number of openings, pipe or conduits to flash, etc.) could in-
crease installed cost to near $1.00/f^
*Exxon Chemical Company technical literature.
-------
TABLE ?. CHEMICAL RESISTANCE OF COMPOUND BASED ON INTERMEDIATE
UNSATURATION BUTYL RUBBER**
Chemical
INORGANIC ACIDS
Boric Acid (10$)
Chlorosulfonic Acid (10$)
Chromic Acid (10$)
Chromic Acid (Cone.)
Hydrochloric Acid (10$)
Hydrochloric Acid (Cone.)
Hydrofluoric Acid (Cone.)
Nitric Acid (10$)
Nitric Acid, (Cone,)
Phosphoric Acid (Cone.)
Sulfuric Acid (10$)
Sulfuric Acid (Cone.)
INORGANIC BASES
Ammonium Hydroxide (10$)
Ammonium Hydroxide (Cone.)
Barium Hydroxide (Cone.)
Calcium Hydroxide (10$)
Potassium Hydroxide (10$)
Sodium Hydroxide (10$)
Sodium Hydroxide (Cone.)
Volume
Change ($)
-1.95
Disintegrated
+20.2
+4-9.6
+0.37
+11.2
+2.18
+1.64
Disintegrated
+0.11
-0.12
Disintegrated
+5.88
+7-39
+1.02
+1.05
+0.23
+0.93
1.77
Tensile Strength
Retained ($)
98.8
56.6
5.42
104.8
56.0
90.4
101.2
98.8
95.2
106.0
101.2
100.6
96.4
100.0
104.8
104.8
Elongation
Retained ($)
106.5
77.8
12.3
102.0
88.8
6?.2
101.4
101.4
95-5
96.1
89.6
99.4
98.6
96.1
99. 4
101.4
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
+3
-10
-21
+2
-11
0
0
+3
+4
-1
-3
+3
+3
+3
+1
-4
Surface
Condition
Tacky
Tacky
V. Tacky
Tacky
SI. Tacky
31. Tacky
V. Tacky
»/
Tacky
Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
INORGANIC SALTS (25$ Solutions)
Aluminum Chloride
Aluminum Sulfate
Ammonium Chloride
Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Phosphate
+0.34
+1.3^
+0.12
+0.13
+1.03
98.2
103.6
95.2
98.2
101.8
97.5
105.3
99.^
99.4
103.9
+2
+3
+3
+3
+3
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky-
Si. Tacky
""Exxon Elastomers/Chemical Resistance Handbook,
#Twelve-month immersion at 75 F ±
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Chemical
Barium Chloride
Barium Sulf ide
Calcium Chloride
Calcium Hypochlorite
Cupric Chloride
'Cupric Sulfate
Ferric Chloride
Ferric Nitrate
Ferrous Sulfate
Magnesium Chloride
Magnesium Sulfate
Nickel Sulfate
Potassium Chloride
Potassium Permanganate
Potassium Bisulfite
Potassium Bichromate
Sodium Borate (Borax)
Sodium Bicarbonate
Sodium Chloride
Zinc Chloride
Zinc Nitrate
ORGANIC ACIDS
Acetic Acid (10$)
Acetic Acid (Glacial)
Chloracetic Acid (10$)
Citric Acid 10$
Formic Acid 10$
Lactic Acid 10$
Oleic Acid (100$
Oxalic Acid (10$)
Phenol (10$)
Phenol (100$)
Picric Acid (10$)
Stearic Acid (100$)
Tannic Acid (10$)
Tartaric Acid (10$)
Volume
Change ($)
+0.4?
+0.51
+1.55
+1.82
+0,13
+1.80
+0.44
+1.25
+0.81
+0.38
+0.69
+0.11
+0.56
+8.34
+7.80
+0.63
+0.73
+0.12
-0.99
+0.23
+0.24
+5.63
+10.7
+5-45
+0.38
+4.15
+0.45
+95-7
+0.12
+7-35
+4.50
+2.07
+18.6
1.05
+1.08
Tensile Strength
Retained ($)
104.8
98.2
95.8
107.8
94.0
96.4
98.8
93-^
97.0
94.0
94.6
94.6
98.8
90.7
113-3
98.8
100.6
98.6
93-6
98.2
93.6
103.0
88.6
133.1
98.8
107.2
98.8
45.8
105.4
115.1
98.8
101.2
108.4
100.0
100.6
Elongation
Retained ($)
105-9
91.6
94.1
107.8
96.1
99.4
98.0
98.0
95-5
96.7
96.7
99.4
100.0
87.7
102.0
99.4
103.9
100.0
96.7
100.0
94.7
103.9
92.2
99.0
101.4
105.9
100.0
59-4
104.9
112.4
109.8
99.4
108.4
96.1
103.9
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
+4
+2
+1
-1
+4
+4
+3
+1
+3
+3
+4
+3
+1
-3
-4
+3
+3
+2
+3
+3
+4
-1
-9
-1
+3
+2
+2
-27
+4
-11
-14
+2
+2
-1
+3
Surface
Condition
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Brittle
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky-
Si , Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky-
Si. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Tacky
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Chemical
ALCOHOLS
Benzyl Alcohol
Ethyl Alcohol
Isopropyl Alcohol
Methyl Alcohol
Ethylene Glycol
Glycerol
1-Hexanol
Resorcinol
ALDEHYDES
Benzaldehyde
Butyraldehyde
Furfural
AMINES
Aniline
Trie thanolamine
UDMH
ESTERS
Amyl Acetate
Dibutyl Sebacate
Dioctyl Phthalate
Ethyl Acetate
Tricresyl Phosphate
ETHERS
Dibenzyl Ether
Diethylene Glycol Mono-
butyl Ether
Ethyl Ether
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl
Ether
Volume
Change (%}
+2.79
+0.89
+1.53
+1.64
-0.36
+1.26
+6.60
+12.0
+7.28
+17.4
+5.34
+7.33
+0.77
+7.00
+45.7
+19.3
+9.13
+8.75
+0.49
+9.56
+3.85
+60.2
+^-.35
Tensile Strength
Retained (%)
104.8
94.0
92.2
97.6
94.6
96.2
84.3
108.4
92.2
91.6
103.6
98.8
94.0 '
58.4
39.8
85-5
104.8
78.3
101.8
106.6
96.4
31.3
101.2
Elongation
Retained (%}
103.9
96.1
96.1
96.1
92.2
89.6
96.7
99.^
98.6
102.6
103.3
103-9
90.2
77.8
48.4
103.3
109.2
88.2
102.6
103.9
106.5
35.3
103.9
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
-8
-2
-2
-2
+4
+2
-11
+1
-13
-18
-9
-13
+3
-9
-24
-17
-12
-12
+2
-13
-10
-27
-7
Surface
Condition
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
-------
TABLE 7 (.continued^
oo
Chemical
HYDROCARBONS
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Hexane
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene
HALOGENATED HYDROCARBONS
Benzyl Chloride
Bromobenzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethylene Dichloride
Perchloroethylene
OTHER SUBSTITUTED
HYDROCARBONS
Carbon Disulflde
Nitrobenzene
KETONES
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Lestoil (1#)
Lux Flakes (l$)
Rinse Dry (1%)
Rinse Dry (Cone.)
Tide (156)
Volume
Change (%}
+84.0
+218.5
+142.9
+142.0
+125.5
+41.9
+128.5
+142.5
+26.1
+118.0
+207.1
+169.5
+25,8
+200.5
+87.0
+3-35
+6.07
+8.60
+22.0
+3.34
+1.53
+0.96
-0.74
+1.77
Tensile Strength
Retained (%)
20.5
16.3
21.7
19.3
21.1
89.2
18.7
19.9
56.0
22,9
19-9
19-3
52.4
16.3
16.9
94.6
86.7
83.1
56.6
101.2
101.8
98.8
97.6
100.7
Elongation
Retained (%}
26.9
17.1
24.9
21.0
23.5
79.0
26.1
21.6
79.8
26.1
19.6
22.2
62.7
18.2
21.0
101.4
90.8
88.8
75.1
105-3
100.6
105.3
98.0
99.0
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
-30
-32
-32
-30
-28
+2
-31
-31
-21
-32
-32
-33
-18
-33
-31
-11
-8
-11
-17
-1
+3
+3
+4
+3
Surface
Condition
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Tacky
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Chemical
OILS & FUELS
A.S.T.M. No. 1 Oil
A.S.T.M. No. 2 Oil
A.S.T.M. No. 3 Oil
A.S.T.M. Fuel A
A.S.T.M. Fuel B
A.S.T.M. Fuel G
Heating Fuel Oil
Jet Aircraft Engine Oil
Kerosine
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS
Chassis Grease
Motor Oil (10W-30)
Gasoline (RON 94)
Gasoline (RON 99)
Gasoline (RON 10-)
Gasoline, Unleaded
HYDRAULIC FLUIDS
Oronite 8200
Pydraul F-9
Pydraul 60
Skydrol
Skydrol 500
Volume
Change (%}
+45.8
+50.6
+151.8
+128.4
+156.1
+140.0
+176.0
+*44. 7
+139.8
+53.6
+149.8
+160.9
+183.4
+203.7
+151.7
+13.7
+11.2
+6.70
+7.30
+3-37
Tensile Strength
Retained (%)
43.4
50.0
31.3
22.9
13-9
18.1
20.5
54.2
18.1
38.6
32.5
17-5
18.7
17.5
18.1
101.8
103.0
104.8
106.6
110.2
Elongation
Retained (%}
56.9
54.3
30.0
24.2
22.9
21.0
22.9
77.8
20.2
43.1
38.6
21.0
21.6
21.0
19.6
104.5
110.4
106.5
110.4
110.4
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
-23
-22
-32
-29
-32
-3
-33
-23
-32
-26
-33
-34
-31
-36
-33
_n
-10
-6
-7
-10
Surface
Condition
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
Unchanged
Tacky
Tacky
SI. Tacky
SI. Tacky
-------
TABLE 8. CHEMICAL RESISTANCE OF VULCANIZED CHLOROSULFONATED POLYETHYLENE COMPOUND
Volume
Chemical Change ($)
Aniline
A.S.T.M. No. 1 Oil
A.S.T.M. No. 3 Oil
Benzaldehyde
Dioctyl Phthalate
Ethyl Alcohol
Ethyl Ether
Gasoline (RON 99)
Hexane
Hydrochloric Acid (10%)
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Perchloroethylene
Potassium Perman-
ganate (25%)
Sodium Chloride (25%)
Sodium Hydroxide (10%)
Toluene
+71.8
+0.59
+40.3
+119.8
+110.5
+5.53
+47.8
+51.8
+25.0
+16.1
+86.0
+105.7
+8.83
+1,03
+1.52
+188 . 0
Tensile Strength
Retained (%)
26.2
108.6
72.4
24.5
39.8
101.7
33.9
32.3
54.6
114.2
28.1
24.5
114.2
115.9
110.3
24.5
Elongation
Retained (%}
64.3
95.2
75.9
37.2
43.5
91.8
58.0
51.7
66.2
90.3
42.0
37.2
87.0
93.2
90.3
35.3
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
-29
+2
-12
-21
-20
-11
-19
-19
-11
+4
-20
-20
+1
+4
+4
-20
Surface
Condition
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI . Tacky
Tacky
Tacky
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Brittle
Unchanged
Unchanged
SI. Tacky
*Exxon Elastomers/Chemical Resistance Handbook. Vulcanized black compound containing 5^-5$ polymer,
J± Q '
^Twelve-month immersion at 75 ± 5 •
-------
TABLE 9- CHEMICAL RESISTANCE OF VISTALON 6505 COMPOUND
Volume Tensile Strength Elongation
Chemical Change (%} Retained (%) Retained (#)
A.S.T.M. No. 1 Oil +115.3
A.S.T.M.. No. 3 Oil +198.9
A.S.T.M. Fuel B +211.0
Ethyl Alcohol +1.25
Hexane +192.1
Hydrochloric Acid (10%) +0.6
Methyl Ethyl Ketone +2.8
Sodium Chloride (25%) -0.2
Sodium Hydroxide (10%) 0
36.1
27.8
18.6
82.1
19.4
98.9
82.5
94.3
98.5
42.0
27.9
18.0
88.5
23.0
95.1
86.9
91.8
93.4
Hardness
Change (Pts.)
-27
-31
-31
-2
-28
+1
-5
+2
+1
Surface
Condition
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
Unchanged
* Exxon Elastomers/Chemical Resistance Handbook.
* Vistaloft 6505 is an ultra-fast curing EPDM that can be blended and covulcanized with many specialty
and general purpose rubbers. 0
®Six-month immersion at 75 F + 5.
-------
to ozone and ultraviolet radiation, is extremely impermeable to water, and
retains flexibility throughout its service life with a high tolerance for
extremes of temperature. It has good tensile and tear strength, good resist-
ance to puncture, and desirable elongation qualities. One of its disadvan-
tages is low resistance to hydrocarbons (petroleum solvents) and aromatic
and halogenated solvents. Butyl rubber liners also have poor workability and
poor seamability, which requires that special two-part temperature vulcanizing
adhesives and cap strips be applied under dry conditions.l|2
Hypalonl.2,^
Hypalon is a widely used synthetic rubber that provides exceptional
weather, ozone, and sunlight (UV) resistance. It will not crack or fail at
extremes of temperature or from weathering. Hypalon is highly resistant to a
wide range of chemicals, acids, and alkalis. It has moderate resistance to
oils and growth of mold, mildew, fungus, or bacteria. Service life can gener-
ally be expected to exceed 20 years without a protective covering of soil.
Usually supplied in the unvulcanized form it can be seamed by heat sealing or
by solvent welding. Its disadvantages are relatively high cost and relatively
low tensile strength.
EPIM
Ethylene propylene rubber is a high-strength, flexible compound tradi-
tionally designed especially for contact with potable water. It is highly
impermeable, has excellent resistance to weather and ultraviolet exposure,
resists abrasion and tear, and has a good tolerance for extremes of tempera-
ture. EPIM is also resistant to dilute concentrations (10 wt %} of acids,
alkalis, silicates, phosphates, and brine. EPEM is not recommended for petro-
leum solvents (hydrocarbons) or for aromatic or halogenated solvents (Table 9)•
This compound can be sealed with a one-step EPEM adhesive and can be expected
to last 15 to 20 years in normal use.l»2
CPE
Chlorinated polyethylene is produced by a chemical reaction between
chlorine and polyethylene and resembles a soft vinyl in texture. Since it is
a completely saturated polymer (no double bonds), it is not susceptible to
ozone attack. The compound also has excellent crack resistance at low tempera-
tures and good tensile and elongation strength. Though CPE has excellent re-
sistance to atmospheric deterioration, it has a rather limited range of toler-
ance for chemicals, oils, and acids. It can be compounded with other plastics
and rubbers and still retain most of its desirable characteristics, making it
a feasible base material for a broad spectrum of liners designed for specific
applications. CPE has been successfully blended with polyethylene, PVC,
acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin, and several synthetic rubbers. It is
widely used to improve stress crack resistance and softness of ethylene poly-
mers and to improve cold crack resistance of flexible vinyls. CPE membranes
are generally unvulcanized and thus can be seamed by solvent adhesives, by
solvent welding, or by heat sealing.
22
-------
Neoprene
Neoprene is a chlorine-containing synthetic rubber closely paralleling
natural rubber in flexibility and strength. However, it is superior to natural
rubber in resisting oils, weathering, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation. Neo-
prene is extremely resistant to puncture, abrasion, and mechanical damage.
This compound is used primarily for the containment of wastewater and other
liquid containing traces of hydrocarbons. It also gives satisfactory service
with certain combinations of oils and acids for which other materials do not
provide long-term performance. Neoprene membranes are vulcanized and conse-
quently require curable adhesives in making seams. They are expensive com-
pared with other flexible liners.
Polyethylene
This thermoplastic material is tough, highly flexible, and inert in
solvents. It also has excellent low temperature qualities, but it has poor
puncture resistance and weatherability if formulated without carbon black or
ultraviolet absorbers. These deficiencies can be overcome with adequate pro-
tective soil covering. However, this lining material is difficult to place
and seam in the field. Its initial cost is relatively low.
Polypropylene
Though prone to ultraviolet attack when formulated without carbon black,
polypropylene has a desirable balance of other physical properties. It is
tolerant to many chemicals and extremes-of temperatures, particularly high
temperatures. This compound has good tensile strength and low permeability to
water. It is difficult to seam in the field. Polypropylene is not recommended
for the containment of oxidizing solvents. '
PVC
Polyvinylchloride is the most widely used liner material because of its
relatively low initial cost and tolerance to a wide range of chemicals, oils,
greases, and solvents. Though not as resistant to ozone, ultraviolet radia-
tion, and weather deterioration as some of the other liner materials, it can
provide long, satisfactory service in many situations if covered with soil.
Exposed areas may be covered with materials of greater weatherability to im-
prove service life-expectancy. PVG has a high strength-to-weight ratio and
good resistance to puncture, abrasion, and microbiological activity. Exposure
to heat causes undesirable deterioration in the presence of some chemicals.
It also becomes stiff at low temperatures, making installation and maintenance
more difficult in cold weather.
FABRIC-REINFORCED MEMBRANE LINERS
Flexible liners are also available in reinforced form. These are pre-
pared by laminating fabric (or scrim) between layers of the basic material.
The resulting advantages of the reinforced liner include a potential reduction
in total thickness, a higher tear strength, more resistance to creep and ozone
23
-------
deterioration, puncture resistance, dimensional stability, added resistance to
seepage, and greater hydrostatic load capacity. -5
Reinforcing fabrics are available in many materials and strengths. -5
Among the more commonly used scrim fabrics are nylon, dacron, polypropylene,
and glass fiber. Scrim selection would be determined by the chemical compo-
sition of the fluids to be contained, the slope of the installation site, and
the stresses of equipment or other mechanical forces to which the liner will
be exposed.
The principal disadvantages of reinforced liners are low elongation to
break, less ability to conform to ground irregularities, less flexibility,
and greater cost than unreinforced liners by 30% to
SELECTING FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS FOR IMPOUNDMENT SITES1'2
In selecting a flexible membrane liner for a specific impoundment site
for the containment of industrial wastes, the following criteria should be
considered :
— The liner material should satisfactorily resist attack from all chemi-
cals (solvents, oils, greases, etc.), ozone, ultraviolet radiation, soil
bacteria, mold, and fungus to which it will be exposed, as evidenced by
sufficient laboratory testing.
— It should have ample weather resistance to withstand the stresses of
freezing, thawing, and periodic shifts of the earth.
— The liner should have adequate tensile strength and flexibility, and it
should be able to elongate sufficiently to withstand the stresses of
installation or use of machinery or equipment without failure.
— It should resist laceration, abrasion, and puncture from any matter that
may be found in the fluids that it will contain.
— All the membrane material in a given installation should be of uniform
thickness and of the same material furnished by the same manufacturer to
ensure good seaming.
— The liner should be free of gels, streaks, particles of foreign matter,
and undispersed raw material. There should be no physical defects such
as cracks, crazes, tears, or blisters. Pinholes should not exceed one
per 8.4 m2 (10 yd2) of liner material.
— It should be of sufficient thickness to guarantee long-term service in
the specific application.
— The liner should be capable of being repaired easily at any time during
its life, and it should be the most economical material that can ade-
quately fill the specific need.
CONTRACTOR CONSIDERATIONS
The choice of both the membrane liner and the installing contractor is
very important in constructing impoundment sites for the containment of indus-
trial waste, particularly since these structures will be expected to perform
without significant leakage for several decades. Such a choice cannot be made
by evaluation of liner material alone. Rather, the ultimate success of the
2k
-------
impoundment site will depend to a large extent on the experience of the liner
vendor and the installing contractor.
Many parameters should be evaluated to obtain optimum performance for
cost in a specific installation. Such parameters should include a complete
description of the factory-produced seam and its properties, as well as the
field seam used by the contractor and the effect on the factory and field
joints of long-term immersion in the fluid to be contained. Ultimately, how-
ever, the success of the impoundment site depends on the integrity and experi-
ence of the membrane liner manufacturer and the installing contractor, their
guarantees, and their financial abilities to support the guarantees.6
INSTALLATION OF FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
Installation of the liner is as important as selection of the material
itself.7 Improper installation of even the best material will defeat the pur-
pose of the lining. The following discussion provides guidelines for the in-
stallation of flexible membrane liners.
Planning
The planning and laying out of the lagoon, pit, pond, etc. should be done
very carefully, for this is the first step that will determine the ultimate
success of the installation.
Contracting
Installation of the liner should be done by a qualified, experienced con-
tractor. Even though a turnkey job may not be desired, a contractor experi-
enced in designing, building, piping, lining, and doing the complete job can
be a definite asset.
Surfacing
The surface over which the liner is to be placed should be clear of all
debris, vegetation, and sharp objects, and it must properly support the
liner. If possible, the surface should be covered with a few inches of sand,
clay, or other fine-textured soil. All surfaces should be well compacted.3
Sloping
Side slopes of the installation berms should be at lease 3*1» preferably
flatter unless specifically designed.If2,3
Trenching
An excavated perimeter trench on top of the berm, 15• 2^--cm (6 in.) mini-
mum in width and 30-^8 cm (l ft) minimum in depth, should be used for anchor-
ing the edges of the liner. This trench should be at least 60.96 cm (2 ft)
from the top inside slope of the dike. On side slopes over 12.19 m (^0 ft) in
length, intermediate trenches should be used to anchor the liner.1>2,3
25
-------
Joining
Since factory joints or seams are usually "better than field seams, liner
sections should "be factory seamed to form sheets at least 15.2^ m (50 ft) wide.
Before making the field seams, all the wrinkles should "be removed from the
surfaces of the liner to be sealed. These surfaces should also be clean and
dry.l»2,3
Field seams should be overlapped at least 5-08 cm (2 in.), but not more
than 15.2^ cm (6 in.), to avoid unnecessary waste of material. Seams can be
made by heat-welding, cementing, solvent welding, adhesive tape, zipper, or
sewn-in-place techniques, depending on the polymer and the compound formula-
tion of the liner. The heat-weld method is felt to give superior seams in
that no foreign material is added to the liner. Both factory and field joints
must be strictly supervised, for an ineffective seam will eventually cause
leakage.1f 2,3
Covering
To provide longer life and protection against mechanical damage from
falling objects, vandalism, and sunlight, it is strongly recommended that
flexible membrane liners be covered, if possible, with a layer of sand or
soil.3
ECONOMICS
The 1973 cost of flexible membrane lining material varied from $0.10 to
$0.60/0.09 m2 (l ft2), and the corresponding installation cost varied from
$0.01 to $0.10/0.09 ra2 (1 ft2). Figure 1 shows the 1973 costs for construc-
tion of an evaporating pond, including earthwork, related piping, lining
material, installation, and placement of an earth cover. More information
concerning cost of individual flexible membrane liners may be found in Table
10. For additional cost information see Rossoff and Rossi."
26
-------
0)
a
28O
240
o
z
tf)
o
o
§ 120
5
(A
O
<•>
200
160
80
40
I
I
I
2 4 6 8 10
STORAGE AREA, ACRES
12
Figure 1. Construction costs of evaporation ponds1 in 1973-
CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN THOUSANDS
STORAGE AREA, ACRES
27
-------
TABLE 10. COSTS FOR INSTALLED FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS IN 1973,
Type of Liner $/ft2
Expo sable Liners:*
:
mils*,
mils 0.36
Butyl:
30 mils*, 0.30
EPIM:
30 mils 0.29
4? mils 0.35
CPE:
20 mils 0.26
30 mils 0.34
Hypalon :
20 mils 0.26
30 mils 0.34
Neoprene :
**7 mils 0.^9
*
Unexposable Liners:
Polyethylene:
20 mils 0.15
Polypropylene :
20 mils 0.1?
PVG:
20 mils 0.18
30 mils 0.22
*Nylon-scrim-reinforced liners cost about an additional $0.10/ft2.
#1 mll=0.001 in.
28
-------
SECTION 5
ASPHALT MATERIALS AS LINERS FOR IMPOUNDMENT SITES
The possibilities of using admixed materials such as asphalt concrete,
"bituminous seal, soil asphalt, and sprayed asphalt membranes as linings in
land impoundment sites have long been recognized. The primary advantages
of asphalt materials are their universal availability, low cost, extreme ver-
satility in available physical forms, and the fact that asphaltic materials
axe some of the most logical engineering materials available for large-scale
waterproofing construction. The use of pure asphalt in membrane form consti-
tutes a most effective construction form from the standpoint of seepage con-
trol and cost effectiveness. But if it is fully exposed, this form has seri-
ous disadvantages in subgrade foundation requirements, weathering and aging
because of exposure to solar radiation and heat, erosion from turbulent water,
and damage from mechanical equipment.9 To a large degree, correction of these
disadvantages was proven possible in prime-membrane type asphaltic linings in
which deep subgrade treatments and filled asphalt membranes were used, but the
cost of such construction remained unduly high. To retain the advantages of a
membrane lining while eliminating or minimizing the disadvantages, new types
of asphaltic materials were developed.
ASPHALT CONCRETE
Asphalt concrete is a carefully controlled mixture of asphalt cement and
graded aggregate that is placed and compacted at elevated temperatures. As-
phalt concrete is especially well adapted to the construction of linings for
all types of hydraulic structures. It may be used for the entire lining
structure, or it may be a principal part of a more complex lining. Depending
on mix design and placement, it may serve as an impermeable layer or as a
porous layer. Properly mixed and placed, asphalt concrete forms a stable,
durable, and erosion-resistant lining.
Asphalt cements of ^K) to 50 or 60 to 70 penetration grades are preferable
for hydraulic concrete linings.9»10 The lower penetration grades produce har-
der asphalt concrete linings that are more resistant to the destructive action
of water, the growth of vegetation, and extremes of weather. They are more
stable on side slopes than linings made with sulfur asphalt cements, but they
retain sufficient flexibility to conform to slight deformation of the sub-
grade.
Mix design of asphalt concrete for hydraulic linings follows general
principles such as those described in publications of the Asphalt Institute.H
29
-------
Table 11 lists some typical mix compositions. The maximum stone size will
generally be from 1.2? to 2.5^ cm (1/2 to 1 in.) in size, and the amount of
mineral filler passing a No. 200 sieve will usually be from £$ to 15%. The
mix should have (ifo to 9$ asphalt content by weight of the total mix. The
aggregate gradation and asphalt content should be such that the mix will be
stable, yet easily compacted to less than ^ffo air voids.
SOIL ASPHALT
Soil asphalt embraces a wide variety of soils, usually those of low
plasticity mixed with a liquid asphalt. Generally, soil asphalt mixtures
are avoided for lining purposes.9.10 There are always exceptions, but soil
asphalt mixes containing cutback asphalts are usually not suitable for lin-
ings. 9* 10 (Cutback asphalts are liquid solutions of asphalt in a volatile sol-
vent. Upon evaporation of the solvent, cutback asphalts assume a heavy con-
sistency typical of the base asphalt.!3) Those soil asphalts containing
emulsified asphalts require a waterproofing seal, membrane, or asphalt con-
crete to be placed on top of them. (Asphalt emulsions are dispersions of
TABLE 11. SUGGESTED MIX COMPOSITIONS FOR
DENSE-GRADED ASPHALT CONCRETE LININGS12
% Passing
For Minimum For minimum
thickness of thickness of
Sieve Size
1.9 cm (3/4 in.)
1.3 cm (1/2 in.)
0.95 cm (3/8 in.)
No. 4
No. 8
No. 10
No. 30
No. 40
No. 100
No. 200
3.31 cm (If in.)
100
95-100
n/a
60-80
45-60
n/a
28-39
n/a
16-25
8-15
2.54 cm (l.inj
n/a
n/a
100
90-97
70-85
n/a
42-52
n/a
20-28
10-16
Asphalt Cement
of Total Mix (wt %} 6.5-8.5 7.5-9.5
30
-------
microscopic asphalt particles in a continuous aqueous phase containing small
amounts of chemicals or clay as emulsifiers. They can be classified as
anionic, cationic, or nonionic, depending on the electrical charge on the
asphalt particles. Asphalt emulsions are normally liquid, reverting to the
solid or semisolid state of the base asphalt after application by means of
evaporation or breaking out of the water.13)
SPRAYED ASPHALT MEMBRANES
An asphalt membrane lining (hot-sprayed type) consists of a continuous
layer of asphalt, usually without filler or reinforcement of any kind. It is
generally covered or buried to protect it from mechanical damage and to pre-
vent weathering (oxidation) of the surface. Its cover may be another layer
of a multilayer lining structure, but generally it is native soil, gravel,
asphalt macadam, or other substances specifically placed for this purpose.
Asphalt membranes are placed to thicknesses of 0.^4-8 to 0.79 cm (3/l6 to 5/l6
in.) and. constitute continuous waterproof layers extending throughout the
length and breadth of the structure being lined. Asphalt of special charac-
teristics is used, to make these membranes into tough, pliable sheets that
readily conform to changes or irregularities in the subgrade. Buried under a
protective coating, an asphalt membrane will retain its tough, flexible qual-
ities indefinitely. It is one of the least expensive types of current liners.
Asphalts used to make membranes must have very low temperature suscepti-
bility and a high degree of toughness and durability. Furthermore, asphalt
for membrane linings must have a high softening point to prevent sagging or
flow down a slope if the cover material should be accidently removed and the
membrane exposed to the sun. The material must also be sufficiently plastic
at operating temperatures to minimize the danger of rupture from earth move-
ment. Also, it must not exhibit excessive cold flow tendencies in order to
effectively resist the hydraulic head to which it is subjected,
Considerable laboratory research and field trials have gone into the
selection of suitable asphalts. Those that meet the requirements are usually
asphalts produced from selected feedstocks by the use of air-blowing tech-
niques. (Some manufacturers employ chemical modifiers, which are most often
termed catalysts, in the blowing process.) Specifications9 that have been
adopted as tentative by the Asphalt Institute appear in Table 12.
BITUMINOUS SEALS?.10
Bituminous seals are generally used to seal the surface pores of an as-
phalt mixture serving as a lining or to provide additional assurance for
waterproofing. They are also considered in some cases where there may be some
reaction between the aggregate in the mix and the liquid to be stored. There
are basically two types of bituminous seals. One is simply an asphalt cement
(sometimes emulsified asphalt is used instead) sprayed over the lining surface
at a rate of about 1.1 liter/m^ (l qt/yd^). This method provides a film
approximately 0.18 cm (1/32 in.) thick. The second type of seal consists of
an asphalt mastic that may contain 25% to yflo asphalt cement. The remainder
31
-------
TABLE 12. TENTATIVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASPHALT FOR HYDRAULIC MEMBRANE
CONSTRUCTION* AS OF DECEMBER 1965 #
Characteristics
AASHO
Test Method
ASTM
Test Method
Grade
Softening Point (Ring
and Ball), F
Penetration of Original
Sample
At 32 F, 200 g, 60 sec
At 77 F, 100 g, 5 sec
At 115 F, 50 g, 5 sec
Ductility at 77 F, cm
Flash Point (Cleveland
Open Cup), F
Solubility in Carbon
Tetrachloride, % @
Loss on Heating, 325 F,
5 hrs, %
Penetration after Loss
on Heating, % of
Original
General Requirements
T-53
T-51
T-4-8
T-4-7
D-36
D-5
D-113
D-92
D-2042
D-6
D-5
175-200
30+
50-60
120-
97.0+
1.0-
60+
The asphalt shall be prepared by the re-
fining of petroleum. It shall be uniform
in character and shall not foam when
heated to 400 F.
*Adapted from Reference 9.
#See the Asphalt Institute specifications for asphalt cements and liquid
asphalts (SS-2), Reference 12, for latest revisions.
©Alternatively, trichloroethylene (not trichloroethane) may be used as the
solvent for determining solubility. In the case of dispute, however,
carbon tetrachloride will be used as the referee solvent.
32
-------
is a mineral filler such as limestone dust or an inexpensive reinforcing
fiber such as asbestos. This mixture is generally squeegeed on at an applica-
tion rate of about 2.7 to 5A kg/m2 (5 to 10 Ib/yd2).
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE AND IMPERMEABILITY OF ASPHALT LININGS
Asphalt linings have generally been found to be quite stable in the
presence of most industrial waste solutions. The exceptions occur when the
wastes contain fairly high concentrations (more than 5 wt %} of petroleum
(hydrocarbon) solvents, oils and fats, and some aromatic solvents (toluene,
etc.). However, asphalt linings are resistant to methyl, ethyl alcohols,
and glycols. The common mineral acids, other than nitric, do not visibly
attack asphalt at moderate concentrations and temperatures. Asphalt is re-
sistant to mineral salts and to alkalis to at least 30$ concentration. As-
phalt shows good resistance to corrosive gases such as hydrogen sulfide and
sulfur dioxide, but it may show variable-to-poor performance when exposed to
hydrogen halide vapors. Table 13 provides information regarding the chemical
resistance of unmodified asphalt.
Asphalt concrete linings should have less than tyfo voids if compacted
properly. If this is done, it is widely accepted that the coefficient of
permeability (K) will be less than LX10 ' cm/sec. Also, the permeability of
a dried asphalt coating 0.32 cm (l/8 in.) thick (measured by the wet cup
method) is about 0.01 grains of water vapor/hr. ft^ per inch of mercury pres-
sure differential across the film, or 0.01 perms.°» It is also accepted that
this is considered to be waterproof.-*-^ Seepage calculations for a given head,
lining thickness, and lining area may, indicate otherwise, but the experience.
of the Asphalt Institute and test conducted in their laboratory-1^ show that
the well designed mix (described earlier in Table 12) will be essentially
impermeable to water (K=0). Any voids in an asphalt lining can be attributed
to trapped air bubbles, and as long as they are not interconnected, .the com-
pacted lining will be watertight. In a practical sense, the design should not
allow for construction inequities that may occur during the placing and com-
pacting of the lining. Construction or paving joints are subject to be the
weakest part of the lining, and steps should be taken to minimize possible
leakage at these joints. The impermeable portion of the liner should there-
fore consist of at least two paving courses, with offset paving joints. To
assure good control in the spreading and compacting of these layers, a level-
ing course of minimum thickness is generally recommended to provide a satis-
factory surface. Depending on the conditions, an additional course with off-
set paving joints may be placed as the final surface layer. This amounts to
two or three paving courses placed on a leveling course. The minimum course
thickness will be governed by the maximum size of stone particles in the as-
phalt mix. The paving course should be at least three times the maximum
particle size (l.2? cm, or 1/2 in.) aggregate. Finally, a well designed and
placed asphalt lining does not require a surface seal to insure a watertight
liner. However, liner consultants frequently require this, possibly as a
final assurance.
33
-------
TABLE 13. CHEMICALS RESISTED BY UNMODIFIED ASPHALT13 (to 150 F)*
Alum
Aluminum chloride
Aluminum nitrate
Aluminum potassium
sulfate
Aluminum sulfate
Ammonium chloride
Ammonium hydroxide*
Ammonium nitrate
Ammonium sulfate
Barium chloride
Barium hydroxide
Barium nitrate
Benzoic acid
Boric acid
Cadmium chloride
Cadmium nitrate
Calcium bisulfite
Calcium chloride
Calcium hydroxide*
Calcium nitrate
Chlorine gas, dry
Chlorine gas, wet*
Citric acid
Copper chloride
Copper nitrate
Copper sulfate
Ethyl alcohol
Ethylene glycol
Glycerine
Gold cyanide
(auric cyanide)
Hydrochloric acid, 10%
Hydrochloric acid, cone.*
Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen sulfide gas, dry
Hydrogen sulfide gas, wet
Iron chlorides (ferric
and ferrous)
Iron nitrates (ferric
and ferrous)
Iron sulfates (ferric
and ferrous)
Lactic acid
Lead acetate
Lead nitrate
Magnesium chloride
Magnesium hydroxide
Magnesium nitrate
Magnesium sulfate
Mercuric acetate
Methyl alcohol
Nickel chloride
Nickel nitrate
Nickel sulfate
Oxalic acid
Phosphoric acid
Phorphorous acid
Phosphorous trichloride
Phthalic acid
Potassium bicarbonate
Potassium carbonate
Potassium chloride
Potassium cyanide
Potassium ferricyanide
Potassium ferrocyanide
Potassium hydroxide, 30%*
Potassium nitrate
Potassium sulfate
Salicylic acid
Silver nitrate
Sodium acetate
Sodium bicarbonate
Sodium carbonate
Sodium chloride
Sodium cyanide
Sodium hydroxide, 30%*
Sodium nitrate
Sodium potassium
tartrate
Sodium sulfate
Sodium sulfite
Sodium thiosulfate
Sulfur dioxide gas, dry
Sulfur dioxide gas,, wet
Sulfur trioxide gas,
dry
Sulfur trioxide gas,
wet
Sulfurous acid
Tannic acid
Urea
Zinc chloride
Zinc nitrate
Zinc sulfate
*Indicates to 80 F, only.
-------
MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COSTS, EQUIPMENT, AND METHODS
Material costs-of asphalt linings vary and depend greatly on the locale.
Except for the membrane asphalt, the required materials are normal paving
ingredients and should cost no more when used for lining purposes. Some rela-
tive costs of asphalt lining materials are listed in Table 14. However, in-
stallation costs are generally higher. For example, a ton of asphalt concrete
lining in place may cost two to four times as much as it would on a roadway. 10
But other factors are to be considered, such as the sloped surfaces, offset
paving joints, and multiple paving courses. Regular road paving equipment is
used whenever possible for constructing an asphalt lining. If the installa-
tion is large enough, and if it is economically justified, special equipment
can be designed and constructed for the job.
MAINTENANCE
Properly constructed, an asphalt lining should require little if any
maintenance. Sometimes an algae or clay deposit along the waterline may tend
to pull the asphalt seal from the surface through repeated drying and wetting,
or there may be some evidence of scour, as has been observed in asphalt-lined
canals. Timely treatment of these areas with an asphalt seal, or even a
slurry seal, can minimize wear. These are exceptions and are evident in only
a few potable water installations. Sometimes cracks occur, especially at
paving joints. But with multilayer construction, these cracks are only one
paving course deep, unless they result from differential settlement of the
structure to an excessive degree. Ordinary crack-filling methods have been
used with success. A properly designed and constructed lining installation
should pose few maintenance problems.
TABLE 14. COSTS OF VARIOUS ASPHALT LINER MATERIALS
14,15
Installed Cost*
Material ($/ft2)
Paving asphalt with sealer coat (5-1 cm, 2 in.) 0.13-0.19
Paving asphalt with sealer coat (10.2 cm, 4 in.) 0.26-0.36
#
Hot sprayed asphalt (4.5 liters/m2, 1 gal/yd2) 0.17-0.22
Asphalt emulsion sprayed on polypropylene fabric (100 mils) 0.14-0.21
Asphalt membrane 0.14
Asphalt concrete 0.20 ^
*Costs d.o not include construction of subgrade or cost of an earth cover.
These can range from $0.10 to $0.50/yd2 per foot of depth.
^Includes earth cover.
35
-------
LIFETIME OF ASPHALT LININGS
Most of the documented Information concerning the life expectancy of as-
phalt linings exists for the "buried membrane linings. However, asphalt con-
crete linings have served satisfactorily for the life of a structure. Potable
water reservoir linings placed in California more than 20 years ago continue
to serve with no projected failure or termination date established.10 The
Montgomery Dam in Colorado, probably with as severe a performance requirement
as any in the United States, performs satisfactorily after nearly 20 years of
continuous service.10
-------
SECTION 6
SOIL SEALANT LINERS FOR IMPOUNEMENT SITES
Seepage of industrial wastes from various unlined types of impoundment
sites can render adjacent land unsuitable for growth of any type of vegetation
and hazardous for occupation by any kind of living creature. The problem is
compounded by the fact that the seepage may ultimately find its way into
streams and rivers where it can be hazardous to aquatic life and adjacent land
areas for many miles.
Coylel" has summarized the principal causes of seepage from unlined im-
poundment sites as:
—Permeable soils or strata of sand or gravel in the reservoir area.
—Shallow soils underlaid by fractured bedrock, solution cavities, bedding
plains, etc.
—Flocculated residual soils over cavernous and fractured limestone and
calcareous shale.
—A gypsum content of the soil high enough to create significant voids
as the gypsum is dissolved.
Under certain conditions, soil permeability may be reduced by the appli-
cation of various chemicals.-'-' »1° Chemical sealing agents react with soil
constituents to form a more impermeable membrane. Since no single chemical
has been reported to seal all soils effectively, tests must be performed on
each type of soil to determine what seepage rates will obtain. Chemical
sealing agents must be:
—Nontoxic to humans, animals, and crops.
—Able to reduce seepage to at least 0.1 to 0.3 ft/ft^ per day.
—Capable of nonrestrictive application under a broad range of soil compo-
sitions in static or dynamic flow conditions.
—Able to resist damage by animals, equipment, erosion, and hydraulic
pressures (that is, 20 psi).
—Durable and resistant to deterioration by climatic conditions such as
freezing and thawing, sunlight, wetting and drying, soil microorganisms,
re-emulsification or chemical change, and reverse hydraulic flow.
—Capable of resealing.
—Efficient in the use of material (low cost).
Unfortunately, the life of most soil sealants is affected by freezing and
thawing, wetting and drying, reaction with constituents in the pond wastes,
and leaching of the sealing agent by waste liquid.
Polymeric soil sealants are a fairly recent development.19-22 Most of
these materials consist of a blend of a high-molecular-weight linear polymer
37
-------
and a crosslinked, swellable polymer of approximately the same molecular
weight. The linear polymer's many sorptive sites allow it to sorb to the
soil and form a flexible network. The crosslinked polymer is extrudable and
can conform to permeability channels in the soil without loss of integrity.
In use, the polymer system helps to form a stabilized soil surface of extreme-
ly low permeability.
Formulation of the polymeric soil sealant system depends on its use, and
in most instances, it is considered to be proprietary by the marketing com-
pany. When used in unfilled impoundments, the polymer is mixed in a low-pH
water/acid solution and then sprayed on the earthen surface as a low-viscosity
slurry. The low-pH condition allows the polymer to penetrate the surface.
Upon subsequent exposure to water, the water-swellable portion swells and be-
comes locked in place. The linear polymer, being sorptive in this state,
attaches to the soil to complete formation of the stable, impermeable surface.
Another formulation that has been successfully used is a bentonite/polymer
system in which bentonite replaces the crosslinked polymer portion. Bentonite
is not as efficient as the crosslinked polymer, but it is considerably cheaper
on a per-pound basis. When it is important to structurally improve the im-
poundment, the use of bentonite with a linear polymer or with a blend of poly-
mers is advantageous.
APPLICATION OF POLYMERIC SOIL SEALANTS
There are three basic methods of application of polymeric sealants:
(l) dry blending, (2) spraying in slurry form, and (3) dusting as a free-
flowing powder.
Bentonite/polymer mixtures may be applied either by dry blending or
spraying in slurry form. When this sealant is dry blended into the soil,
standard highway compaction procedures and blending equipment may be used.
Compaction by rubber-wheeled compactors is desirable. If the sealant is ap-
plied by spraying, special equipment and techniques are required. The polymer
sealant may be sprayed as a slurry across the area to be sealed. The slurry,
which is formed by carefully blending a dry powder into fresh water, is re-
ported to be somewhat viscous and slightly acidic. But it has been success-
fully applied by water-hauling trucks equipped with centrifugal pumps, hoses,
and adjustable fire nozzles.
Application of the sealant as a dry powder can be accomplished by dusting
across the surface using any equipment suitable for dispersing a powder. The
size and shape of the impoundment site normally dictates the type of equipment
required.
EFFICIENCY OF SOIL SEALANT SYSTEMS
The first of several factors that affect the efficiency of polymeric
sealants is the method of application. Dry-blending provides the most effec-
tive method. Its use is also desirable where structural strengthening of
38
-------
the impoundment is required. The order of effectiveness of the other methods
is spraying and dusting.
The amount of material used in an application also appears to influence
the overall efficiency of the soil sealant, But to date, no actual field data
are available for comparisons.
Other factors influencing efficiency are degrees of soil compaction and
composition of the impoundment water. The data in Tables 15-1? list some
representative soil sealants and the effects of factors such as soil compac-
tion and water composition.
TABLE 15. REPRESENTATIVE SOIL SEALANTS22
Sealant
Application
Remarks
Cationic Asphalt
Emulsion
Oil Soluble Polymers
in Diesel Fuel
Sodium Tetraphosphate
Sodium Carbonate
Lignin Derivatives
Gelled Alum
Garboxyme thyl
Cellulose with Alum
Petroleum Emulsions
Attapulgite Clay
Liquid Elastomeric
Polymer
Farm Ponds
Fresh Water
Sulfite Liquor
S torage,
Canals
Desalination
Byproduct Brine
Desalination
Byproduct Brine
Desalination
Byproduct Brine
Desalination
Byproduct Brine
Fresh Water
Requires approximately
19,000 1 / 4,0^7 ra2
(5,000 gal/acre) dispersed
in water.
Injected beneath surface
of water where seepage
was occurring.
Dispersant distributed in
15.2-cm (6-in.) layer of soil
at 2.3 kg/9 m2 (5 lb/100 ft2),
Careful compaction rendered
soil impervious.
Wet-dry cycles disrupt water
barrier. Used 183 g (0.4 Ib)
of reagent/0. $4- m2 (yd2) of
soil.
\% lignin cost $3,400/
4,0^7 m2 (acre),
0.2$ CMC cost $2,250/
4,04-7 m2 (acre).
tyfo additive cost $4,400/
4,047 m2 (acre).
?% Zeogel cost $1,000/
4,047 m2 (acre).
Patent discloses several
compositions, including
polyure thane elastomers.23
39
-------
TABLE 16. INFLUENCE OF COMPACTION ON RATE OF SEEPAGE
THROUGH SOIL TREATED WITH SEALANT*
Density of Soil Seepage Rate—cm/day (in./day)
kg/0.03 m3 (rb/ft3) Original 1 day 7 days
42.2 (93)# 124.5 (49)
42.2 (93)@ -- -- 50 (19.7) 108.7 (42.8)
4?.7 (105)# 27.9 (11.0) --
4?.4 (105)@ -- — 4.8 (1.9) 3-3 (l«3)
50.4 (lll)# 12.2 (4.8)
50.4 (lll)@ -- ~ 2.3 (0.9) 1.02 (0.4)
*Sealant is a product of Powell, Division of Dow Chemical Company, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, 74102. Soil and water are from Altus, Oklahoma, irrigation district.
#No sealant applied.
©Sealant, J225, applied at rate of 3^3 kg/4,047 m2 (800 lb/acre).
TABLE 17. INFLUENCE OF WATER COMPOSITION ON RATE OF SEEPAGE
THROUGH SOIL TREATED WITH SEALANT*#@
Seepage Rate—cm/day (in./day)
Sealant Original 1 day 7 days
None 24.6 (9.7)
363 kg/4,047 m2
J225 (800 lb/acre) — — 10.4 (4.1) 12.7 (5.0)
181.5 kg/4,047 m2
J225 (400 lb/acre) +
118 kg/4,047 m2
soda ash (260 lb/acre) -- — 1.2 (0.48) 1.1 (0.42)
None 45.7 (18.0)
363 kg/4,047 m2
J225 (800 lb/acre) — — 19.8 (7.8) 14.7 (5-8)
181.5 kg/4,047 m2
J225 (400 lb/acre) +
295 kg/4,047 m2
soda ash (650 lb/acre) — — 2.3 (0.9) 1.5 (0.6)
*Southwest Colorado. Sealant is a product of Dowell, Division of Dow
Chemical Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
#
Water contained excess amount of divalent cations; sodium carbonate was
added to lower calcium content.
n all cases, density of soil was 46.8 kg/0.03 n»3 (103 Ib/ft3).
40
-------
LIMITATIONS OF SOIL SEALANT SYSTEMS
Polymeric sealants do not in themselves provide structural strength. A
wastewater impoundment site that has not been compacted will still be weak
following a treatment with sealants. Impoundments must be compacted. Dry
reservoirs can be compacted using mechanical methods, and those that are
filled can be compacted hydraulically by exposure for sufficient time. When
seepage rates are stabilized, maximum hydraulic compaction has been obtained.
Exposure to salts and acids that cause the polymers to shrink will affect
the efficiency of the seal. Exposure to the same acidic conditions that allow
the slurry form to be used will decrease the effectiveness of the seal once in
place and exposed to waters of higher pH.
Similarly, exposure to salts, especially multivalent cations, cause a
decrease in polymer volume. Exposure to the same salts that retard hydrolysis
of the polymer and allow the powder form to be used decreases the efficiency
of the seal established against fresh water.
In spite of these limitations, polymer sealant systems deserve further
study for possible use as sealants in industrial waste impoundments.
Rubber latex has been used in sealant studies to control acid mine
drainage.2^ The seal penetrated the top 25.^ cm (10 in.) of soil, which
was unsatisfactory for the testing purposes. But additional investigations
may prove the suitability of latex as a sealant for waste impoundment sites.
SOIL CEMENT
Soil cement is prepared by compacting a mixture of Portland cement, water,
and a wide variety of soils. As the Portland cement hydrates, the mixture be-
comes a hard, low-strength Portland cement concrete. Soil cement is sometimes
used to surface pavements with low-volume traffic, and it is extensively used
for the lower layers of pavements, where it is generally referred to as ce-
ment-treated base. Soil cement is also widely used in water control construc-
tion, more specifically to protect the slopes at earth dams and other embank-
ments. See Appendix D for information regarding contract awards for soil
cement water control projects.
Strong soil cement linings can be constructed using many types of soils,
but the permeability of the resulting liners varies with the nature of the
soil: The more granular it is, the higher the permeability. By using fine-
grained soils, soil cements with permeability coefficients of about 10 cm/sec
can be obtained. In actual practice, surface sealants are often applied to
soil cement linings to obtain a more waterproof structure. Aging and weather-
ing characteristics of soil cement linings are fairly good, especially those
associated with the wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles. Some degradation of soil
cement linings can be expected in an acidic environment, however.
-------
SECTION 7
NATURAL SOIL SYSTEMS AS LINERS FOR IMPOUNDMENT SITES
Seepage of liquids commonly occurs through natural soils that contain
little or no clay or silt. Therefore, the addition of selected clays offers
a feasible method for limiting such losses.
SOIL/BENTONITE
High-swell clay minerals have been widely used to control excessive
seepage in natural soils by decreasing their permeability. Bentonite, one of
the most widely used clays, is a heterogeneous substance composed of mont-
morillonite and small amounts of feldspar, gypsum, calcium carbonate, quartz,
and traces of other minerals. Bentonite has colloidal properties because of
its very small particle size and the negative charge on the particles. About
70^ to 90^ of the particles are smaller than 0.6 micron.^5 Bentonite has the
capacity of absorbing approximately five times its weight in water and occu-
pies a volume of 12 to 15 times its dry bulk volume at maximum saturation.2°
It is this swollen mass that fills the voids in soils that normally would
permit water seepage. These high-swell bentonites are found in Wyoming,
South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and California.
The level of ionic salts found in certain industrial wastes is often
sufficient to reduce the swelling of bentonite and therefore impair its use-
fulness as a sealant. Since the water that initially contacts the bentonite
is most critical to its effectiveness, swelling of the bentonite can often
be effected by prehydrating the bentonite in fresh water. This forms an
effective seal in the presence of contaminated wastewater. But in the pres-
ence of high quantities of dissolved salts, the prehydrated clay eventually
deteriorates. The use of a specially formulated form of bentonite (Saline
Seal) reportedly assures that after prehydration, the bentonite will remain
swollen for a long time and will not deteriorate as rapidly when exposed to a
high level of ionic contaminants.
Saline Seal bentonite can be distributed over a prepared lagoon surface
at a rate of about 1.82 kg/0.09 m2 (2.0 lb/ft2) and mixed thoroughly into the
top 5-1 to 15.2 cm (2 to 6 in.) of soil. The area is then covered with a
minimum of 1 in. of fresh water to effect prehydration. After 2 to 4 days,
industrial waste can be put into the lagoon.
Saline Seal can also be placed on unstable or wet soil surfaces as a
slurry. Slurries are made by mixing approximately 0.23 kg (l/2 lb) of
-------
Saline Seal per 3.8 liters (gal) of water. When distributed over the soil
surface, the slurry will effectively seal the soil surface.
Table 18 compares the relative performance of a "bentonite and Saline Seal,
"both of which were pre hydra ted with fresh water. The soil tests were per-
formed on sandy soil, with 3.6 kg (^.0 lb) of each applied per 0.09 m2 (ft2)
and thoroughly mixed into the top 5-1 cm (2 in.) of soil. As the data indi-
cate, the prehydrated bentonite seal showed signs of deterioration on the
second, day and failed completely on the seventh day, whereas the Saline Seal
maintained and even improved the seal. The contaminated water used in the
test contained 3*1% sodium chloride and J>.($> sodium sulfate.
TABLE 18. COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF BENTONITE AND
SALINE SEAL BENTONITE IN A SOIL TEST27
Day
Prehydrated Bentonite
Prehydrated Saline Seal
Permeability'
(cm/sec)
Leakage Rate#
cm (in.)
Permeability*
(cm/sec)
Leakage Rate#
cm (in.)
1
2
3
4-
5
7®
1.0 x
2.0 x
5.0 x
1.0 x
6.0 x
1.0 x
10~6
10-6
10~6
10-5
io-5
10-*
0
0
1
3
19
31
.318
.635
.905
.18
.1
.8
(o.
(o.
(o.
(1.
(7.
(12.
125)
250)
750)
25)
5)
5)
l
l
0
0
0
0
.0 x
.0 x
.8 x
.9 x
.7 x
.7 x
io-6
lo-6
10~6
io-6
io-6
10- 6
0.318
0.318
0.254-
0.284-
0.221
0.221
(0.125)
(0.125)
(0.100)
(0.112)
(0.087)
(0.087)
*1.0 x 10~6 cm/sec represents an effective seal (equivalent to 1 ft of
compacted native clay).
#Loss of water at a 1.22-m (4-ft) head.
<%eal failed.
Low-swell clays such as hydrated mica and kaolin have had limited use as
sealants. However, some research has been conducted on their sealing charac-
teristics,^ and perhaps additional investigations are needed. The low-swell
clays are affected less by increased concentrations of magnesium or calcium
in water, and the damage from drying may be less severe. Low-swell clays
are generally found in Nevada and other western states.
The cost of bentonite-type clays varies from about $10/ton to more than
$25/ton (FOB .the clay-processing plant), with $20/ton a typical cost.28 The
price variation is a function of the quality of the clay, the degree of carried
out processing, and the quantity purchased. In addition to the basic cost,
shipping is expensive unless the site is located near the clay-processing
plant. Typical shipping costs range from $20 to $30/ton, depending on the
mode of transportation and the distance traveled. Note, however, that if clay
-------
suitable for an impoundment site lining is available on the site itself, the
cost could be as low as $1.00/0.8 m2 (yd2) if the clay can be bulldozed into
position. 29
COMPACTED SOILS
The characteristics of a soil suitable for compaction include low perme-
ability, high stability, and good resistance to erosion. The moisture level
in a soil affects the degree of compaction and consequently the permeability.
An optimum moisture level exists for maximum compaction, after which increased
permeability occurs. Also, the optimum moisture level for maximum compaction
depends upon the type of soil. Therefore compaction tests should be performed
on each soil to determine optimum conditions. Generally, when the moisture
content of a soil is optimum, a compaction greater than 95$ of maximum density
can be obtained by making approximately six passes with a tamping roller
followed by four passes with a rubber-tired roller.29
Because soil permeability is inversely proportional to the thickness of
the compacted layer, the soil should be compacted in 15.2-cm (6-in.) layers
up to a depth of 3 ft. But even under the most optimum conditions of compac-
tion, soil permeabilities may change over a period of time.
The waste contained in a compacted, earth-lined pond may have both detri-
mental and beneficial effects on the permeability of the soil. Acidic wastes
can react with the soil and destroy its expansion capabilities. Alkaline
wastes may contain a compound such as sodium carbonate that is beneficial in
reducing the soil's permeability. Adequate initial testing should be conduc-
ted, to determine the permeability effects of the wastes to be contained. In
addition, physical factors such as freezing, thawing, drying, and wetting may
affect the compacted soil liner. The compacted earth liner should be kept
moist to maintain stable conditions.
-------
SECTION 8
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTES
This section attempts to describe the basic chemical components, and in
some cases the origins, of the seven industrial waste categories of interest.
The principal sources of this information were various EPA reports, including
their water quality effluent guideline documents. In a number of instances,
complete characterization of an industrial waste category in terms of chemical
components and concentrations could not be determined, or a category was some-
times identified only in such terms as BODj>, COD, TOG, and TSS. It would have
been desirable to supply information concerning the primary chemical constit-
uents of each industrial waste category, including possible toxic and hazard-
ous materials as well as a complete description of the carrier fluids
(i.e., acidic, basic, or neutral, and aqueous or organic). However, the
information that was available formed the basis for the subsequent engineering
evaluations and recommendations as to the suitability of the liner materials
for containing specific and representative industrial wastes. These evalu-
ations also include predictions as to ,the preferential liner material(s) for
a given situation, and they are based on the best chemical characterization
data available.
CAUSTIC PETROLEUM SLUDGE
Caustic (5-7 wt % sodium hydroxide) solutions are widely used in the
petroleum refineries in such process operations as washing, sweetening, and
neutralizing. Sources of spent caustic solutions are the alkylation and
isomerization units, LPG treating, and Merox prewash, extraction, and sweet-
ening. Various intermittent caustics are derived from processes such as
hydrorefining, hydrocracking, and hydrosaturation. These spent caustic
solutions typically contain 6.2$ to ?.*$ solid.s, of which approximately 4<$
to yffo is caustic. Table 19 describes the chemical constituents and composi-
tions of the spent caustic waste streams from the various identified refinery
processes. These solutions may also contain hydrocarbon materials.
OILY REFINERY SLUDGE
Oily refinery sludges are generally described as oily solids consisting
of finely divided particles (which may or may not exhibit suspension charac-
teristics) contained in aqueous streams. In addition to oil and water, such
sludges are composed of sand and silt that accompany the crude oils into
the refinery, other materials such as heavy metals and organics, and
15
-------
TABLE 19. CAUSTIC PETROLEUM SLUDGE SOURCES AND COMPOSITION
CA
Scent Caustic
Caustic Source
Continuous Caustics
Alkylation Unit
Izomerization Unit
LPG Treating
Merox Prewash
Merox Extraction
Merox Sweetening
Intermittent Caustics
Hyd rore fine r*
Hydrocracker
Hydro-saturator
NaOH
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
24,6
5.2
0.12
0.12
0.12
Mercaptides
0.1
Trace
1.0
0.2
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Sulfides
Trace
Trace
2.2
3.2
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
Sulfites
3-1
—
Trace
Trace
Trace
Trace
1.1
1.1
1.1
Composition, wt %
Sulfates Thiosulfates Carbonates
3.1 Trace 1.2
1.0
Trace — 1.0
Trace Trace 1 . 0
Trace 0.9 1.0
Trace 0.6 1.0
0.01 Trace 2.0
0.01 Trace 2.0
0.01 Trace 2.0
Other
HC 0.1
NaCI, 3-9
—
—
Bisulfides,
Merox catalyst
Disulfides,
Merox catalyst
#
#
—
^Average of once per
Co, Sat
NH3, Sat
NaCN, Trace
COS, Trace
year for a 5-day period.
-------
corrosion-erosion products that result from various refinery operations.
Table 20 lists the concentration ranges and total quantities of components
of refinery solid wastes from a number of sources.
ACIDIC STEEL-PICKLING WASTE
In a typical steel mill, acidic wastes result from pickling lines that
remove the scale formed in the steel rolling process. In the production of
cold reduced steel, all scale must be removed to prevent lack of uniformity
and to eliminate surface irregularities. The pickling line generally consists
of several acid-proof tanks operated in series. Following the acid tanks are
cold- and warm-water rinsing tanks. The first rinse washes the acid from the
steel, and the second warms the steel and produces flash-drying before recoil-
ing. The type and concentration of acid used vary according to the type and
grade of steel being processed. Wastewaters from the continuous picklers
originate as tank overflow, rinse sprays, scrubber flow, and looping pit
discharges. Tables 21 and 22 describe the analytical data from the scrubber
flow and tank overflow from a typical steel pickling line. Total discharges
from the entire pickling operation of a typical steel mill may be in excess
of 3.5 mgd. These wastes are dumped at times while still at elevated temper-
atures.
HEAVY-METAL-BEARING ELECTROPLATING SLUDGE
For the purpose of this study, heavy-metal-bearing electroplating sludge
is defined as the waste that results when metallic coatings are applied on
surfaces by electrodeposition. The industrial segment involved includes both
independent (job) platers and captive operations associated with produce fab-
rication and assembly.
Waterborne wastes generated in the electroplating and metal finishing
industry generally include:
—Rinse waters from plating, cleaning, and other surface-finishing
operations.
—Concentrated plating and finishing baths that are intentionally or
accidentally discharged.
—Wastes from plant or equipment cleanup.
—Sludges, filter cakes, etc. produced by naturally occurring deposition
in operating baths or by intentional precipitation in the purification
of operating baths and chemical rinsing circuits.
—Regenerants from ion exchange units.
—Vent scrubber waters.
Much of the literature on volume and composition of electroplating and
metal finishing waste refers to the large or intermediate-size plants that
do routine plating (Tables 23 and 24-). The values shown in Table 24 are for
combined raw waste effluent, and the concentrations listed are considered
representative of water use in the average electroplating facility.
-------
TABLE 20. RANGES OF CONCENTRATIONS AND TOTAL QUANTITIES FOR REFINERY SOLID WASTE SOURCES
(ALL VALUES IN MILLIGRAM PER KILOGRAM EXCEPT WHERE NOTED)
Parameters
Phenols
Cyanide
Selenium (Se)
Arsenic (As)
Mercury (Hg)
Beryllium (Be)
Vanadium (V)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Nickel (Mi)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Silver (Ag)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Ammonium
Salts (as NH4+)
Benz-a-pyrene
Oil (wt./O
Total Weight
Metric Tons/yr.
Sludge from
Clarified Once
Through Cooling
Water
0.0-2.1
0.01-0.74
0.1-1.7
0.1-18
0.42-1.34
0.013-0.63
15-57
16.6-103
5.5-11.2
20.5-39
56-180
93-233
0.84-1.3
0-1.0
17.2-138
0.5-33
0.01-13
0-1.8
0.24-17.0
9.7-18.0
Exchange
Bundle
Clearing
Sludge
8-18.5
0.0004-3.3
2.4-52
10.2-11
0.14-3.6
0.05-0.34
0.7-50
310-311
0.2-30
61-170
67-75
91-297
Trace
1.0-1.5
0.5-155
1.0-12
5-11
0.7-3.6
8-13
0.4-1.0
Slop Oil
Emulsion
Solids
5.7-68
0-4.6
0.1-6.7
2.5-23.5
0-12.2
0-0.5
0.12-75
0.1-1325
0.1-82.5
2.5-288
8.5-111.5
60-656
0-20.1
0.025-0.19
0.25-380
0.25-30
0-44
0-0.01
23-62
1.4-29.2
Cooling
Tower
Sludge
0.6-7.0
0-14
0-2.4
0.7-21
0-0.1
Trace
0.12-42
181-1750
0.38-7
0.25-50
49-363
118-1,100
0.01-1.6
0.06-0.6
1.2-89
0.25-2.5
0.07-14
0-0.8
0.07-4.0
0.1-0.13
API/Primary
Clarifler-
Separator
Bottom
3.8-156.7
0-43.8
0-7.6
0.1-32
0.04-7.2
0-0.43
0.5-48.5
0.1-6790
0.1-26.2
0.25-150.4
2.5-550
25-6,596
0.05-3
0.024-2.0
0.25-83
0.25-60
0.05-24
0-3.7
3.0-51.3
0.3-45
Dissolved
Flotation
Float
3.0-210
0.01-1.1
0.1-4.2
0.1-10.5
0.07-0.89
0-0.25
0.05-0.1
2.8-260
0.13-85.2
0.025-15
0.05-21.3
10-1,825
0-2.8
OrO.5
2.3-1,320
0.025-2.5
8.7-52
0-1.75
2.4-16.9
13.6-31.0
Air
Kerosene
Filter Clays
2.0-25.2
Trace
0.01-26.1
0.09-14
0-0.05
0.025-0.35
13.2-42
0.9-25/8
0.4-2.3
0.025-15
0.4-12,328
6.6-35
0.02-0.7
0.19-0.4
4.25-12
0.012-8.8
M).01
1.7-1.8
0.7-5.6
0.79-127
Lube Oil
Filter Clays
0.05-6.4
0.01-0.22
0.1-2.1
0.05-1.4
0.04-0.33
0.025-0.5
0.5-65
1.3-45
1.3-5
0.25-22
0.5-8.0
0.5-115
0.013-1.0
0.025-1.5
0.25-2.3
0.025-0.05
2-4
0,02-0,2
^3.9
102-682
Waste
Biosludge
1.7-10.2
0-19.5
0.01-5.4
1.0-0.6
0-1.28
Trace
0.12-5
0.05-475
0.05-1.4
0.013-11.3
1.5-11.5
3.3-225
0.1-0.5
n. 16-0. 54
1.2-17
0.25-2.5
28-30
Trace
0.01-0.53
1.8-38.5
-------
TABLE 2tt (continued)
Parameters
Phenols
Cyanide
Selenium (Se)
Arsenic (As)
Mercury (Hg)
Beryllium (Be)
Vandium (V)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Nickel (Ni)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Silver (Ag)
Cadmium (Cd)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Ammonium
Salts (as NH4+)
Benz-a-pyrene
Oil (wt.%)
Total Weight
Metric Tons
Coke
Fines
0.4-2.7
Trace
0.01-1.6
0.2-10.8
0-0". 2
0-0.2
400-3,500
0.02-7.5
0.2-9.2
350-2,200
3.5-5.0
0,2-20
0.01-3.0
0.015-2
0.5-29
0.1-2.5
No value
Trace
0-1.3
0.06-4.2
Silt from
Storm Water
Run off
6.3-13.3
0.48-0.95
1.1-2.2
1.0-10
0.23-0.36
Trace
25-112
32.5-644
11.0-11.3
30-129
14.8-41.8
60-396
0.4-0.6
0.1-0.4
20.5-86
6.3-7.5
1.0
0.03-2.5
2.2-5.5
2.7
Leaded
Tank
Bottoms
2.1-250
Trace
0.1-3.1
63-455
0.11-0.94
Trace
1.0-9.8
9.0-13.7
26.5-71
235-392
110-172
1190-17,000
0.05-1.7
4.5-8.1
158-1,100
0.5-118
No value
0.02-0.4
18.9-21
0.2-1.3
Non-Leaded
Product Tank
Bottoms
1.7-1.8
0-14.7
1.5-22.4
Trace
0.41-0.04
0.025-0.49
9.1-34.6
12.7-13.1
5.9-8,2
12.4-41
6.2-164
29,7-541
0.5-0.7 v
0.25-0.4
12.1-37.3
0.25-18.2
0.2
0.3-0.9
45.1-83.2
34.7-77
Neutralized HF
Alkylation
Sludge (CaF2)
3.2-15.4
0.21-4.6
0.1-1.7
0.05-4.5
0.05-0.09
0.012-0.13
0.25-5
0.75-5
0.-3-0.7
7.4-103
2.5-26
7.5-8.6
0.12-0.25
0.012-0.12
4.5-9.6
Trace
Trace
No value
6.7-7.1
28-67
Crude
Tank
Bottoms
6.1-37.8
0.01-0.04
5.8-53
5.8-53
0.07-1.53
Trace
0.5-62
1.9-75
3.8-37
12.8-125
18.5-194
22.8-425
0.03-1.3
0.025-0.42
10.9-258
0.025-95
2.0
0-0.6
21-83.6
0.14-0.26
Spent Line
from Boiler
Feedwater
Treatment
0.05-3.6
0-1.28
0.01-9.2
0.05-2.3
0-0.5
Trace
0-31.6
0.025-27.9
0-1.3
0.13-26.2
0.22-63.2
2.0-70
0.05-0.7
0-1.3
0.01-7.3
0-0.05
Trace
Trace
0.04-0.5
28.5-214.7
Fluid Catalytic
Cracker Catalyst
Fines
0.3-10.5
0.01-1.44
0.01-1.4
0.05-4.0
0-0.16
0.025-1.4
74.4-l,:24
12.3-19'''
0.25-37
47.5-950
4.1-336
19-170
0.5-3.0
0-0.5
10-274
0.5-?i .'
No value
0-1.0
0.01-0.8
0.65-23,6
-------
TABLE 21. PICKLE LINE SCRUBBER DISCHARGE (235,000 gpd)
Parameter
pH
Mineral Acidity
Total Acidity
Chlorides
Total Iron
TABLE 22.
Parameter
Mineral Acidity
Chlorides
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Total Iron
High,
ppm
3-1
2,060.0
5,720.0
^,350.0
3,266.0
PICKLER TANK OVERFLOW
High,
ppm
12,759
218,000
406,55^
598
155,775
Low,
ppm
1.6
80.0
140.0
200.0
32.6
(8.33 x 10^ kl/day)
Low,
ppm
7,192
170,000
283,580
65
110,510
Average ,
ppm
2.2
9^5.0
2,220.0
1,600.0
760.0
Average ,
ppm
8,778
193,666
3^9,835
315
137,15^
50
-------
TABLE 23. CHROMIUM- AND CYANIDE-BEARING WASTES FROM TYPICAL PLATING
OPERATIONS IN THE ELECTROPLATING INDUSTRY*
Chromium-bearing waste
Type of Work Plated
Aircraft Engines and Parts
Automobile Bumpers
Automobile Grills
Missile Parts
Office Furniture
Typewriters and Office Machines
Instrumentation and Control
Equipment
Electronic Hardware
Home Appliances
Television Antennaes
Silverware
Instrument Motors and Electric
Clocks
Automobile Manufacture
•Metal Fasteners
Unspecified
Volume
(mgd)
0,440
.480
.100
.080
.024
.050
— —
.828
.043
—
.040
.112
.620
.089
—
Cr
#
—
700
1
—
16
—
—
—
—
5
—
30
52
—
Concentration
(nw/1)
Ni Cu
f #
— —
— —
—
— —
39
— — — —
•• — —
— —
— —
33 135
— —
80 70
302
— —
Cyanide-bearing waste
Volume
(mgd) CN
0. 294 #
—
—
.032 80
—
39
.013
.259 '200-1500
.108
.011
.165 172
— —
.410 204
—
.250 40-130
Concentration
(mg/1)
Cu Zn Cd
// * *
—
—
—
—
—
— — —
—
—
— — —
18 11
—
113
—
— —
*Adapted from Reference 30.
^Analysis not available.
-------
TABLE 24. APPROXIMATE CONCENTRATIONS OF WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
PRIOR TO AND AFTER TREATMENT FROM A TYPICAL FACILITY ELECTRO-
31
PLATING COPPER, NICKEL, CHROMIUM, AND ZINC
Estimated
Untreated
Wastewater
Concentrat ion ,
Wastewater Constituent mg/1
Copper (Cu ) or (Cu )
Nickel (Ni+2)
Chromium (Cr3+)
(Cr6+)
(CrT)*
Zinc (Zn2+)
Cyanide
Sodium (Na+)
Potassium (K+)
Carbonate (C032~)
Orthophosphate (P043-)
Pyrophosphate (P207^~)
Silicate (Si032~)
Metaborate (B0?3~)
Perborate (803*-)
Sulfate (S042~)
Bisulfate (HS04_)
Fluoride (F-)
Fluorosilicate (SiFg2")
rTaT*^T"a ^o ff* i ll/ C\f 2m^\
ia.1; LIT ate \^4"^f^o *
Chloride (C1-)
Nitrate (N03~)
Wetting agents (organic)
Sequestrants
Chelates
Additives (organic)
Proprietary acid salts
Total dissolved solids
6.7
2.4
0.05
17
17
32
50
465
2.4
57
47
53
50
36
1.3
19
3.7
0.1
0.5
8.9
228
1.4
6.8
6.5
6.5
0.5
32
1150.0
Analysis of
Treated Water
Effluent Supply
Concentration, Analysis,
mg/1 mg/1
0.23
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.20
0.1
0.21
20
— —
— —
3.0 0.01
—
—
— —
— —
20
—
0.1
—
— —
25
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
— —
*(Ci^=Total Chromium)
-------
TOXIC PESTICIDE FORMULATION WASTE
Pesticide formulations are generally classified as liquids, granules,
dusts, or powders. Most pesticides are mixed in equipment used only for that
purpose. The most important unit operations involved are dry mixing and
grinding of solids, dissolving of solids, and blending. The major source
of contaminated wastewater from such plants is the periodic cleanup of formu-
lation lines (including filling equipment), which is carried out to prevent
cross-contamination of one product with another. Liquid formulation lines
are cleaned out most frequently, and they generally require the most water.
Liquid washouts are generally required, "but only in those sections of the units
where liquids are normally present (i.e., the active ingredient pumping sys-
tem, scales, and lines). The remainder of the formulation unit can normally
be cleaned out by dry washing with an inert material such as clay.
In addition to cleanup of formulation equipment, the principal sources of
wastewater generated at pesticide formulator and packaging plants are spill
washdown, drum washing, air pollution control devices, and area runoff (Table
25). Note that the concentrations of these wastewater contaminants have been
reported only in such terms as COD, BODjj, TSS, TOC, and TDS.30
TOXIC PHARMACEUTICAL WASTE
The major sources of wastewater in the pharmaceutical industry are by-
product washings, the extraction and concentration of byproducts, and equip-
ment washdown. The wastewaters are generally characterized30 as containing
high concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS, and solvents. Wastewaters from some
chemical synthesizing and fermentation operations may contain metals (Fe, Cu,
Ni, Ag, etc.), cyanide, or antibacterial constituents.
Wastes from the pharmaceutical industry may also originate from the
following general processing categories:
—Fermentation. Used primarily to produce antibiotics and steroids from
batch fermentation tanks in the presence of a particular fungus or
bacterium.
—Biological products and natural extractive manufacturing. Used to pro-
duce blood derivatives, vaccines, serums, animal bile derivatives, and
plant tissue derivatives.
—Chemical synthesis. Used to produce hundreds of products, from vitamins
to antidepressants.
—Formulation. Used to convert the products of the other three manufac-
turing areas into final dosage forms (tablets, liquids, capsules, etc.)
marketed to the public.
—Research. Includes microbiological, biological, and chemical activities.
Wastewaters generated by the fermentation and chemical synthesizing proc-
esses contain much higher pollutant concentrations than those resulting from
the manufacture of biological and natural extraction products. An analysis
of raw waste loads by processing category is given in Table 26.
53
-------
TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PROCESS-ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER
32
SOURCES FROM PESTICIDE FORMULATORS AND PACKAGERS
Processing Unit
Source
Nature of Wastewater Contaminants
Mix tank
Air pollution control
equipment
Drum washers
Formulation lines and
filling equipment
All product formulation
and blending areas
Warehouse, technical
active ingredient
storage
Condensate from equipment steam
cleaning
Scrubber water
Rinse water, floor drains, and
caustic solution
Wash water and steam condensate
from clean out
Area washdown and clean-up water,
spills, leaks
Spills, leaks, run-off
Dissolved organics and suspended
and dissolved solids. Noncon-
tinuous flow rate and relatively
low flow. pH variable.
High in suspended and dissolved
solids and dissolved organics.
Relatively low flow rate.
Dissolved organics and suspended
and dissolved solids. High pH.
Dissolved organics and suspended
and dissolved solids. A major
source of wastewater.
Dissolved organics and suspended
and dissolved solids.
Dissolved organics and suspended
and dissolved solids.
-------
TABLE 26. RAW WASTE CONSTITUENTS FROM THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY?2 (Kg/KKg production*)
Oil Total
Total and Hard-
Process TDS NO^-N P Grease Gl SO^ Sulfide ness Ga Mg Gu Phenol
Fermentation 5-990 ^.68 22.0 1*13 1.260 2?^ # 29^ 123 30 0.005 0.15
Biological
Products and
Natural
Extractive
Manufacturing 895 0.02 7.3 3.62 211 2?? # — 36.4 — 0.12 0.073
Chemical
Synthesis 1.060 0.20 7.83 21.6 10*4- 203 ~ 6l.6 15.2 5.68 0.002 O.l6
Formulation 11.3 0.053 0.15 0.78 2.51 0.52 0.007 5.82 1.01 — 0.001
Research 1.33 Trace 0.23 # 0.9^ 1,27 #
*English equivalent would be rb/1,000 Ib production.
not reported.
-------
WASTES FROM RUBBER AND PLASTICS INDUSTRIES
For the purpose of this study, the plastics industry is defined as com-
panies involved in the production of epoxies, melamines, ureas, and phenolics.
The rubber industry consists of the tire and inner tube industry and.the syn-
thetic rubber industry.
Information concerning flow rates and compositions of process wastewater
streams associated with the plastics industry is severely limited, and the
best available is expressed only in terms of BOD^, COD, and suspended solids^1
The following are the essential elements, compounds, and parameters considered
to be important constituents of the process waste streams;
pH Chromium
Color Copper
Turbidity Lead
Alkalinity Zinc
Temperature Iron
Nitrogenous compounds Cobalt
(organic, amines, and nitrates) Cadmium
Oils and greases Manganese
Dissolved solids Aluminum
(principally inorganic chemicals) Magnesium
Phosphates Molybdenum
Phenolic compounds Nickel
Sulfides Vanadium
Cyanides Antimony
Fluorides Numerous organic chemicals
Mercury
Process wastewaters from the tire and inner tube industry include dis-
charges of solutions used in the manufacturing process, washdown of processing
areas, run-off from raw material storage areas, and spills and leaks of cool-
ing water, steam, processing solutions, organic solvents, and lubricating
oils. Primary pollutants in these wastewaters are oil, grease, suspended
solids, and acidity and alkalinity (pH).
The synthetic rubber industry generates wastewaters that contain the
same general constituents described above. The significant waste components
are COD, BOD, suspended solids, dissolved solids, and oil and grease.32
Heavy metals, cyanides, and phenols are not generally found in significant
quantities (less than 0.1 mg/liter) in synthetic rubber process wastewaters.
-------
SECTION 9
COMPATIBILITY OF LINER MATERIALS AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
The information presented in this report forms the basis for the follow-
ing evaluations of liner material suitability for containing specific and
representative industrial wastes. The prediction of liner/industrial waste
compatibilities found in Table 1 are, of course, based on the best available
chemical characterization data. In a number of instances, this information
has been incomplete or presented in terms such as BODc and COD, which are not
adequate for making such predictions.
The chemical resistance of a material refers to its ability to withstand
two primary types of chemical attack—actual reaction with chemicals, and
absorption of chemicals. A liner material with good resistance to a particu-
lar chemical will neither react readily with nor absorb the chemical signifi-
cantly while in contact with it. If a liner material has poor resistance to
a particular chemical, reaction with or absorption of it will occur with
concurrent loss in the physical properties of the liner. Failure of the
liner material may follow.
Thus the selection of a liner material for an impoundment site must begin
with an in-depth characterization of the industrial waste that will be con-
tained. Such a study should include identification of the chemical components
and their respective concentrations.
Final selection of the liner material should also include laboratory
determination of the effects that a specific industrial waste has on the liner
material. The resistance of a lining material to chemical attack by a waste
can be assessed by immersing specimens of the liner in the waste and observing
changes in physical properties as a function of immersion time, following
procedures specified in standard tests such as ASTM Method D471. Liner speci-
mens can be subjected to long-term exposure tests at lower temperatures or
accelerated tests at elevated temperatures. The more closely the exposure
conditions simulate actual service, the more reliable the results will be.
Therefore, long-term exposure tests (e.g., 12 months) at room temperature
should give better results than shorter tests at higher temperatures, though
there may still be some question as to correlation of laboratory testing with
service performance.
Table 1 indicates that there are currently available materials suitable
for containing any of the seven categories of industrial waste discussed.
The ratings of "good," "fair," and "poor" for the compatibility of given com-
binations were determined by considering the available information on chemical
57
-------
components of the industrial waste with the chemical resistance data for the
liner materials (as listed in Tables 2 through 9 and 12 and discussed in
Sections 4 and 7)• The "good" rating indicates that satisfactory service of
the liner material in the industrial waste will be obtained. A "fair" rating
indicates that the liner material is suitable only for intermittent exposure.
And a "poor" rating indicates that the liner material is not recommended for
industrial waste that contains components that will chemically attack the
liner and result in ultimate failure.
Caustic petroleum sludge is alkaline and contains salt components; con-
sequently, soil cement, soil asphalt, compacted clays, and soil bentonite
would be subject to attack. These lining materials are therefore rated
"fair," as this waste stream may also contain hydrocarbons. All of the as-
phalt lining materials and all of the membrane linings, except possibly
polyethylene and polypropylene, must be rated "fair." If no hydrocarbon is
present in the waste, all the membranes are satisfactory as well as asphalt
membrane and concrete.
Oily refinery sludge contains even higher concentrations of hydrocarbons
(Table 20), along with quantities of phenol and heavy metals. But the salt
concentrations and alkalinity are very low. On the basis of this information,
only oil-resistant PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, soil cement, soil
bentonite, and compacted clays are judged to be acceptable from a chemical
resistance point of view.
Acidic steel pickling wastes are high in acidity (low pH) and salt con-
tent (Table 2l). Therefore the linings based on soil and clay, including
bentonite, are rated "poor." In addition, because this waste is sometimes
introduced into ponds at elevated temperatures, asphalt membranes and poly-
meric membranes such as PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene, and CPE are rated
"poor." Rubber membranes and chlorosulfonated polyethylenes are rated "good."
Heavy-metal-bearing electroplating sludges generally contain high salt
concentrations and small amounts of organic additives. Consequently, lining
materials based on soils and clays, including bentonite, are rated "poor."
The asphalt materials (i.e. the nembranes and concretes) are rated "fair," as
are the thermoplastic membranes, PVC, polyethylene, and chlorinated poly-
ethylene. The rubber, butyl, EPDM, polypropylene, and chlorosulfonated
polyethylene are rated "good."
Although the information on toxic pesticide formulation wastes did not
identify the concentrations of organic components, they were assumed to be on
occasion at least 25 wt %. On this basis, oil-resistant PVC, polyethylene,
polypropylene, soil cement, soil bentonite, and compacted clays are rated
"good." Because of the possibility of organic chemical components in this
waste, the other liners are rated "fair."
The rationale for toxic pharmaceutical wastes followed similar lines.
The information on concentrations of organic constituents was limited, but
the types and quantities of such materials were assumed to be greater than
those found in toxic pesticide formulation wastes. Hence, only oil-resistant
PVC, soil cement, soil bentonite, and compacted clays were rated "good."
58
-------
Since the primary pollutants in the waste streams from the rubber and
plastics industries were described31•32 as oil, grease, suspended solids,
acidity, and alkalinity, it was assumed that the concentrations of these
materials were less than 0.1 ing/liter. On this basis, all lining materials
are rated "good" for this waste stream.
•In all cases, final selection of the liner material should be based on
the additional parameters discussed, throughout the report, particularly in
Section 2. Final selection should also be based on laboratory immersion
tests (preferably long-term) of the liner material in the industrial waste
to be contained.
59
-------
REFERENCES
1. Kumar, J., and Jedlicka, J. A. Selecting and Installing Synthetic Pond
Linings. Chem. Eng. , 80 (3): 67-70, 1973.
2. Lee, J. Selecting Membrane Pond Liners. Pollution Engineering, 6 (l) :
33-40,
3. Personal Communication with C. E. Staff, Staff Industries, Upper Mont-
clair, N.J., April 1975.
4. Commercial Literature of E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Wilming-
ton, Delaware.
5. Ewald, G. W. Stretching the Lifespan of Synthetic Pond Linings. Chem.
Eng., 80 (22): 67-70, 1973-
6. Hendershot, J. A. All About Pit Liners. Amer. Oil and Gas Reporter,
15 (11): 46-47, 1973-
7. Staff, C. E. Seepage Prevention with Impermeable Membranes. Civil
Engineering-ASCE, 44-46, February 1967.
8. Rossoff, J. and Rossi, R. C. Disposal of By Products from Non-Regener-
able Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems. Technical Report No. EPA-650/2-74,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. , 1974.
9. The Asphalt Institute. Asphalt in Hydraulic Structures. Technical
Bulletin MS-12, 1961.
10. Personal Communication with D. E. Edge, the Asphalt Institute, College
Park, Maryland, March 1975-
11. The Asphalt Institute. Mix Design Methods for Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving.
Manual Series No. 2, 1974.
12. The Asphalt Institute. Specifications for Paving and Industrial As-
phalts. Specification Series No. 2 (SS-22) , 1974.
13. Chemical Resistance of Asphalt Coatings. Materials Protection, 5* 81-83,
1966.
14. Clark, D. A. , and Moyer, J. E. An Evaluation of Tailing Pond Sealants.
EPA-660/2-74-065, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
60
-------
15. Haxo, H. E., Jr. Evaluation of Liner Materials. Research Contract
68-03-0230, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1973.
16. Coyle, J. J. Farm Seepage Problems in Ponds and Small Irrigation Reser-
voirs. In: Proceedings of the Seepage Symposium, ARS 4-1-90, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1963.
I?. Day, M. E., and Armstrong, E. L. Brine Disposal Pond Manual. Research
and Development Progress Report No. 588, U.S. Office of Saline Water,
Washington, D.G., 1970.
18. Disposal of Brine Effluents from Desalting Plants: Review and Bibliog-
raphy. General Report No. 42, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado, 1969.
19. Morrison, W. R., Dodge, R. A., and Merriman, J. Pond Linings for De-
salting Plant Effluents. Report No. REC-ERC-71-25, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 1971.
20. Jones, C. W. Effect of a Polymer on the Properties of Soil Cement.
Report No. REC-OCE-70-18, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado,
1970.
21. Morrison, W. R. Chemical Stabilization of Soils. Report No. REC-ERC-
71-30, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 1971.
22. Parks, C. F, and Rosene, R. B. Preventing Losses of Industrial and
Fresh Water from Pits, Ponds, Lakes, and'Canals. AIME Environ. Quality
Conf. Preprint, No. EQC-64, 351-358, 1971.
23. Goldstein, H., Ingram, H. T., and Kufrin, R. J. Method for Preventing
Water Loss from Reservoirs and Channels. U.S. Patent No. 3t555i828.
Witco Chemical Corp., 1971.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Use of Latex as a Soil
Sealant to Control Acid Mine Drainage. Report No. 14010 EFK 06/72,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972.
25. Dirmeyer, R. D. Report of Sediment Lining Investigations, Fiscal Years
1954-5. Report No. CER 55 R DD7, Colorado A. & M. College, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 1955.
26. Dirmeyer, R. D. Report of Sediment Lining Investigations, Fiscal Year
1956. Report No. CER 56 RRD 17, Colorado A. & M. College, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 1956.
27. Technical Literature of the American Colloid Company, Skokie, Illinois.
28. Rollins, M. B. Controlling Seepage with Playa Sediments. Nevada Ranch
and Home Review, 4 (5): 14-15, 1969.
61
-------
29. Rollins, M. B. and Dylla, A. S. Bentonite Sealing Methods Compared in
the Field. J. of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proc. Amer. Soc.
of Civil Engrs., 96 (IE 2): 193-203, 1970,
3-0. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Development Document for Effluent Limitations,
Guidelines and Standards for the Synthetic Resins Segment of the
Plastics and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing Point Source Category.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975-
31. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Addendum to Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Synthetic Resins Segment of the Plastics and Synthetic Materials
Manufacturing Point Source Category. EPA-¥K)/l-?^/036-a, U.S. "Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 197^.
32. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limita-
tions, Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Tire and
Synthetic Segment of the Rubber Processing Point Source Category.
EPA-4^0/1-73/013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. ,
1973-
62
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldsworth, G. A. Special Materials Handle Wastewater. Can. Ghem. Process,
55 (11) i 71-74, 1971.
The Asphalt Institute. Asphalt for Conservation and Control of Water. Infor-
mation Series No. 131, September 1964.
The Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Linings for Waste Ponds. Information Series
No. 136, August 1966.
The Asphalt Institute. Asphalt for Waste Water Retention in Fine-Sand Areas.
Technical Publication MISC-74-3, May 1974.
The Asphalt Institute. Asphalt for Water Control and Environmental Preserva-
tion. Information Series No. l64, December 1973 «
Asphalt Lined Gravel Pit Solves Disposal Problem. American City, 89 (6)s 68,
1974.
Asphalt Lines Reservoir to Prevent Leaks. Engr. News Rec., 187 (24): 18-19,
1971.
Baker, J. W. Polypropylene Fiber Mat and Asphalt Used for Oxidation Pond
Liner. Water and Waste Engr., 7 (ll): 17, 20-21, 1970.
Banerji, S. K. (Ed.) Management of Gas and Leachate in Landfills. EPA-600/
9-77-026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.
Bensen, J. R. Buried Asphalt Membrane Lining Developed to Give Canal Seepage
Control at Low Cost. Western Construction News, September 15,
Bleakley, W. B. Sun Uses Polypropylene-Lined Saltwater Pit at a Savings.
Oil and Gas J., 65 (50) : 138-139, 1967.
Buried Bituminous Membranes for Reservoirs in France. Shell Bitum. Rev.,
45: 4-7, 1974.
Butyl Rubber Lines Leak-Free Pond. Oil and Gas J., 64 (19): 164, 1966.
Butyl Sheeting Lines Aeration Basins. Rubber Age, 105: 56, 1973.
Chuck, R. T. Largest Butyl Rubber Lined Reservoir. Civil Engr., 40 (5) :
44-47, 1970.
63
-------
Companies Match Technologies to Complete Hawaiian Reservoir. Adhesive Age,
13: 36, 1970.
Cornay, C. J. and Ryffel, J. R. A Method for Lining Ponds, Pits, Dams, Wells
and Canals. Gr. Brit. Patent 2,139,258, 1969.
Dammer, R. H. Rubber-Lined Reservoir Solves Waste Water Storage Problems.
Plant Engineering: 119-121, December 1967.
Development Document for Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and New Source Per-
formance Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.
EPA-440/l-74-Ol4a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1974.
Elastomers Line Storage Pits. Industrial Research, 62, 64, July 1969.
Experiment in Sales of Plastic Liners in Waltham Forest. Public Cleansing,
6 (14): 179-185, 1971.
Field-Sewn Joints Make New Liner Tailored To Pit. Oil and Gas J., 69 (l6):
51-53, 1971.
Fuller, W. H. (Ed.) Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the
Hazardous Waste Research Symposium. EPA-600/9-76-015, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
Geier, F. H. , and Morrison, W. R. Buried Asphalt Membrane Canal Linings.
Bureau of Reclamation Research Report No. 12, U.S. Dept. of Interior,
1968.
Genetelli, E. J., and Cirello, J. (Eds.) Gas and Leachate from Landfills:
Formation, Collection, and Treatment. EPA-600/9-76-004, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
Haxo, H. E., Jr. Evaluation of Liner Materials Exposed to Leachate. EPA-600/
2-76-255, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976.
Haxo, H. E., Jr. Liner Materials Exposed to Hazardous and Toxic Sludges.
EPA-600/2-77-081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1977.
Haxo, H. E., Jr. What's New in Landfill Liners. American City and County,
February 1977.
Headrick, R. T., and Headrick, E. E. The Use of Coated Fabrics in the Contain-
ment of Petroleum. In: Second Ann. Offshore Technol. Conf. Preprint,
No. OTC-1171, 227-228, 1970.
Hickey, M. E, Investigations of Plastic Films for Canal Linings. Bureau of
Reclamation Research Report No. 19, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1969.
-------
Hovater, L. R. No Water Lost From This Reservoir. Public Works, 104:
72-73, 1973-
Jones, T. K. The Effect of Bacteria and Fungi on Asphalt. Presentation
before the South Central Regional Conference of National Association of
Corrosion Engineers, 1964.
Kays, W. B. Construction of Linings for Reservoirs, Tanks, and Pollution Con-
trol Facilities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1977.
Largest Butyl Lined Reservoir. Public Works, 105: 92, 1974.
Lauritzen, C. W. Farm Ponds and Plastic Liners. Utah Farm and Home Science,
90-92, September 1966.
Lined Lagoons Prevent Pollution in Park Area. Public Works, 102: 79, 1971.
Lining Material Helps Solve Water Pollution Problems. Civil Engineering-ASCE,
39: 102, 1969.
Midwest Research Institute. The Pollution Potential in Pesticide Manufacturing.
PB-213 782, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
National Steel Corporation. Combined Steel Mill and Municipal Wastewaters
Treatment. Technical Report No. 12010 DTQ-02/72, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972.
Norman Research Institute. Evaluation of Wastewaters from Petroleum and Coal
Processing. EPA-R2-72-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, 1972.
Nylon Coated Fabric Used to Rehabilitate Reservoir. Water and Sewage Works,
119: 49, 1972.
Pelloquin, L. Pond Liner Serves Dual Role. Water and Waste Engr., 9 (3):
B-15, 1972.
PVC Pond Liners by the Acre. Western Plastics, 18 (10): 22-23, 1971.
Russel, C. S. Residuals Management in Industry: A Case Study of Petroleum
Refining, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1973-
Saltwater Disposals and Oilfield Water Conservation. Petrol. Equip. Serv.,
30 (4): 22, 24-26, 1967.
Sheppard, W. L. Membranes Behind Brick, Part I. Chemical Engineering, 122,
124, 127, May 1972.
Sheppard, W. L. Membranes Behind Brick, Part II. Chemical Engineering, 110,
112, 114, 116, June 1972.
65
-------
Shultz, D. W. Land Disposal of Hazardous Wastes. EPA 600/9-78-01 6, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Slover, J. W. Liner Pit Having Wind Resistant Liner Therein and Method.
Patent 3,^-61,673, 1969.
Spillane, L. J. Liner Halts Dye Pollution. Water and Waste Engr. , 8 (l):
A-17, 1971-
Staff, C. E. Flexible Membranes Useful for Many Purposes. Water and Pollution
Control, June
Staff, C. E. Vinyl Sheeting Impounds Water in Variety of Worldwide Uses.
Water and Sewage Works, 116 i 2^6-2^9, 1969.
Steffen, I. H. The Use of Asphalt in Reservoir Linings and Dam Cores.
Water Power, 25 (10): 393-^00, 1973-
USGS No. Div. Sets Pit Liner Waiver Criteria. Western Oil Reporter: 10-11,
January 1975 •
Vallerga, B. A. , and Hicks, R. G. Water Permeability of Asphalt Concrete
Specimens Using Back Pressure Saturation. J. of Materials, 3 (l):
73-86, 1968.
Vinyl Liners Effective Pollution-Control Devices. Pollution Equipment News ,
33, December 1969.
Vinyl Unit Liners are Effective Pollution-Control Devices. Mid-Amer. Oil and
Gas Reporter, 12 (9): 16-19 i 1969-
Walker, L. G. Elastomeric Sheet Lining. In: 26th NACE Conf. Proc., 51-55.
1970.
Watertight Butyl Rubber Sheet Lines Basin in Water Handling Project. Rubber
Age, 106: ^8,
Zolin, B. I. Protective Coatings, Protective Lining Performance. Chem. Eng.
Prog., 66 (8): 31-37, 1970.
66
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. NEW POND/PIT LINER SYSTEM
DuPont Go. has recently Introduced an entirely new system for lining
industrial, agricultural, and municipal ponds and pits.* The 3110 liner
system reportedly marks the first time that portable, hand-held welding equip-
ment has "been made available for liner installations. Designed specifically
for use with a proprietary elasticized polyolefin sheeting, the welding unit
produces reliable and economical field seams at rates up to 6.1 m/min
(20 ft/min), depending on ambient temperatures. DuPont also claims that by
using the welder, acceptable heat seams 1.9 cm (3/^ in.) wide can be made in
continuous lengths, even when weather conditions make other field seaming
methods inadequate.
The seamless polyolefin sheeting, furnished in rolls 6.1 m wide, 6l.O m
long, and 0.051 cm thick (20 ft x 200 ft x 0.020 in.) is wide enough to
eliminate factory fabrication into large panels. DuPont also maintains that
because the sheeting is resistant to ultraviolet light, it does not require
a covering of earth for protection.
* Anon. Chemical Engineering, 60, April 1975.
6?
-------
APPENDIX B. MANUFACTURERS, FABRICATORS, SUPPLIERS, AND INSTALLERS
OF LINER MATERIALS*
1. Hodgman Division
Plymouth Rubber Co., Inc.
104 Revene Street
Canton, MA 02021
(617) 828-0875
(212) 594-0240
Mr. Charles Nees
Mr. Kevin Doolin
2. Unit Liner Company
P.O. Drawer 1460
Wewoka, OK 74884
(405) 257-3323
Mr. J. A. Hendershot
3. Watersaver Company, Inc.
3560 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80216
(303) 623-4111
Mr* C. J. Gerker
Mr. W. Slifer
4. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
1210 Massillon Road
Akron, OH 44306
(216) 794-4002
5. Carlisle Tire and Rubber Co,
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1000
Mr. Hugh C. Kenny
Mr. Ray Jumper
6. Staff Industries, Inc.
78 Dryden Road
Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
(201) 744-5367
Dr. Charles Staff
7. Fabrico Mfg. Corp.
1300 W. Exchange Ave.
Chicago, IL 60609
(312) 254-4211
8. Burke Rubber Company
2250 South 10th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 297-3500
9. Reeves Bro., Inc.
P.O. Box 431
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
(704) 286-9126
Mr. Walter A. McEvilly
10. Dow Chemical Co.
Park 80 Plaza East
Saddle Brook, NJ 07662
(201) 845-5000
Mr. Robert Woodshire
11. B. F. Goodrich Company
500 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44318
(216) 379-3565
Mr. F. Long
Compiled during the course of the commercial literature review.
68
-------
12. E. I. DuPont Co.
3707 Chevy Chase
Louisville, KY 40218
Mr. Gerry Fisher
E.I. DuPont Nemours & Co.
Bank of Delaware, Suite
Wilmington, DE 19898
Mr. F.J. Rizzo (added May 19?8)
13. Dowell
Div. of Dow Chemical Co.
140 Concord Street
Indiana, PA 15701
Mr. Thomas A. Sutton
14. Key Enterprises
Odessa, TX
15. St. Clair Rubber Co.
1765 Michigan Avenue
Marysville, MI 48040
(313) 364-7424
Mr. John J. Arcuri, Jr.
16. Gulf Seal Corporation
410 Main Building
Houston, TX
Mr. John Saenz
17. Misco United Supply Co.
257 N. Broadway
Wichita, KS 67202
18. Gulf States Asphalt Co.
610 Jefferson Street
Houston, TX 77002
19. Chemprene
Beacon, NY
(914) 831-2800
Mr. Spicer
20..Plasti-Steel, Inc.
Vickers KSB and T Bid.
Wichita, KS 67202
(316) 262-6361
21. Liberty Vinyl Corporation
3380 Edward Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 249-1234
Mr. Roy Lambert
22. Revere Plastics, Inc.
Little Ferry, NJ
(201) 641-0777
23. Hovater-Way Engineers, Inc.
1833 E. 17th Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
(714) 835-8124
24. Hartwell Company
740 Albert Avenue
Lakewood, NJ 08701
Mr. Jack Hartwell
25. American Colloid Company
5100 Suffield Court
Skokie, IL 60076
26. The Pantasote Co. of New York, Inc.
26 Jefferson St.
Passaic, NJ 07055 (added May 1978)
27. Schlegel Area Sealing Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 197
1555 Jefferson Rd.
Rochester, NY 14-601 (added Kay 1978)
-------
APPENDIX C. LISTS OF CASE HISTORIES OF LANDFILL IMPOUNDMENT SITES*
TABLE C-l,
INSTALLATIONS IDENTIFIED DURING COURSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND
FROM PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH INSTALLERS, FABRICATORS. ETC.
Liner Material and
Date Installed
Industrial Waste
Installer
Lagoon Owner
1) Hypalon
2) Nylon/Butyl
(1973)
3) Hypalon
(1969)
4) PVC
5) Soil Sealant
(Dowell-Dow
Chem) (1971-
72)
6) Soil Sealant
(12/72)
Acidic steel-
pickling waste
Textile finishing
wastes
Brine or crude
oil
22 acre aeration
lagoon for pulp
and paperboard
wastes
Steel plant
process water
7) Asphalt and
Polypropylene
Fiber Mat
(Petromat*)
(Phillips Pet.
Co.) (Nov. 1969)
Oil-contaminated
fresh water
Oil refinery
wastewater
Unit Liner Co.
Wewoka, OK
Staff Industries
and Cornell,
Rowland, Haynes
or Merryfield
(engr. firm)
Litwin Corp.
Wichita, KS
Imperial West
Chemical Co.
Antioch, CA
D. A. Huckabay,
Pres.
Reeves Bro., Inc.
Bishopville, -SC
Mid America
Pipeline Co.
Conway, KS
Weyerhaeuser
Company
Springfield, OR
Penna, WV
Tulsa, OK
Tesoro
Alaskan Petro-
leum Corp.
Alaska
70
-------
TABLE G-l (continued)
Liner Material and
Date Installed
Industrial Waste
Installer
Lagoon Owner
8) Asphalt
9) Soil Cement
(1972)
10) Soil-Bentonite
(Hypalon-cov-
ered Slopes)
5-Acre Lagoon
11) PVC (20 mil)
(1970)
12) Polyethylene
Dye wastes
Combination of
municipal and
industrial wastes
(paper mill)
Electroplating
wastes
Brine evaporation
ponds
Caustic waste of
oli*e processing
industry (8 ponds-
205 total acres)
Burns Con-
struction Co.,
Las Cruces, NM
and Gulf Seal
Corp., Houston, TX
Holloway Con-
struction Co.,
Lansing, MI
Staff Industries
and local con-
tractor
Hanes Corp.
Mesilla, NM
Muskegon, MI
County Dept.
of Public Works
Rockwell, Int.
Newton Falls, OH
Texasgulf, Inc.
Moab, UT
Lindsay, CA
71
-------
TABLE G-2. CASE HISTORIES OF DOWELL SOIL SEALANTS'
Customer
Village
City
Lost Lake
Country Club
Oil Refinery
Village
Paper
Company
Oil
Company
Steel
Corporation
Uranium
Mining
Company
Copper
Mining
Corporation
Natural
Gas Producer
Location
Parma,
Michigan
Monahans ,
Texas
Ossinlike,
Michigan
Tulsa,
Oklahoma
Roscoramon,
Michigan
Baton Rouge,
Louisiana
Granby,
Colorado
Pennsylvania ,
W. Virginia
Grants ,
New Mexico
Arizona
New Mexico
Type of
Pond
2 sewage
lagoons
recreational
pond
sewage
lagoons
storm water
collection
pond
sewage
lagoon
industrial
retention
pond
recreational
lake
industrial
ponds
settling
pond
tailings
dam
retention
pond
Stored
Fluid
sewage
water
fresh
water
sewage
water
oil
contaminated
fresh water
sewage
water
plant
water
fresh
water
process
waters
mine
waters
fresh
water
brackish
waters
Date
Oct. 1971
Mar. 1972
Aug. 1972
Dec. 1972
Nov. 1973
Sept. 1970
May 1969
1971-1972
1969
Apr. 1972
May 1973
*Commercial literature of Dowell, Division of the Dow Chemical Company,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102.
72
-------
TABLE C-3. PARTIAL LIST OF CASE HISTORIES OF ASPHALT-LINED
LAGOONS AND TREATMENT AREAS*
Type of Treatment Area
Location and Description
Sewage Holding Ponds
Brine Storage Reservoirs
Waste water Lagoon
Waste water Lagoon
Sludge Drying Bed
Sewage Lagoon
Copper Recovery Pads
Reactionary Ponds
Iron Ore Storage Lagoon
Lithium Brine Storage Pond
Settlement Ponds
Ash Pond.
Velders, Reedsville, Sister Bay, Chippewa Falls
(all in Wisconsin); 2 to 3 in- asphalt concrete.
Eldorado, Arkansas (Michigan Chemical,
McAlester Fuel Co., High Bank Oil Field);
buried asphalt membrane.
Graniteville Co., Graniteville, South Carolina;
3 in. asphalt concrete, emulsified asphalt seal.
Olin Mathieson, Atlanta, Georgia; asphalt seal
on asphalt concrete.
Grand Rapids, Michigan; asphalt concrete.
Pocomoke City, Maryland; 3 in- sand asphalt.
Anaconda, Butte, Montana; asphalt membrane on
asphalt concrete.
Echo Corp., Warren, Pennsylvania.
Midland Ross Corp., Portland, Oregon.
Foote Mineral Co., Silver Peake, Nevada;
asphalt membrane on asphalt concrete.
Sugar beet refinery, Fargo, North Dakota;
asphalt concrete.
New Castle, Pennsylvania; 3 i*1- asphalt core,
^ in. porous asphalt.
* Courtesy of the Asphalt Institute, College Park, Maryland.
73
-------
APPENDIX D. SOIL CEMENT CONTRACTS FOR WATER CONTROL*
Most of the 102 soil cement contracts awarded in the period 1961-1974
were for slope protection for earth dams or other embankments. They can be
classified, by design and construction method, as follows (some of them in-
volve two or more different designs) :
Design A. Embankment facing, stair-step construction, 59 projects.
Design B. Embankment facing, stair-step construction, exposed to flowing
water, 15 projects.
Design C. Embankment facing or lining, construction in one or more layers,
parallel to slope, 18 projects.
Design D. Embankment facing or lining, construction in one or more layers,
parallel to slope, exposed to flowing water, 8 projects.
Design E. Mass placement, usually in horizontal layers, including founda-
tions, trenches, and channels, 10 projects.
Mixing of the soil cement was generally by the central-plant process, and
placement was in approximately horizontal layers with 6-in. compacted thick-
ness.
The thickness of soil cement on the projects of Designs A or B, unless
otherwise noted, was 2 to 2.5 ft. Resulting square-yard costs for those
thicknesses consequently are 67$ to 83$ of the cubic-yard costs. When alter-
nate designs were provided, it was usually assumed that 2 ft of soil cement
would provide embankment protection equivalent to that provided by 3 ft of
riprap and bedding combined.
The 102 projects required a total of $.6 million yd3 of soil cement
(Table D-l). In more than half the projects, soil cement was specified with
no alternative. For three of the projects, totaling 4*4-9,000 yd3, no contrac-
tor bid the riprap alternative specified. For another l4 projects, totaling
792,000 yd3, bids were received on both soil cement and alternative materials,
with the awards going to soil cement. Total savings for those 14 projects
were estimated to be nearly $3 million—an average of $3.76/yd3.
Table D-l indicates how the weighted average contract cost has changed
from year to year. The yearly variations in weighted average should not be
surprising, since the cost of soil-cement depends on the cement percentage,
which is based on the characteristics of the soil aggregate available and on
* Extracted from Soil-Cement for Water Control - Contracts Awarded - Summary
No. 8, December 31, 1974, Portland Cement Association, Old Orchard Road,
Skokie, Illinois 60076. In this summary 102 individual projects are listed
with the following information given for each: location, owner, engineer,
contractor, bid date, quantity of soil cement in project, cement content,
cost data, and construction period.
74
-------
TABLE-D-l. SOIL CEMENT FOR WATER CONTROL, SUMMARY BY YEAR
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Number of
Contracts
Awarded
1
5
3
8
7
3
11
6
9
8
9
8
9
15
Total
ya3
Awarded
51,000
254,800
159,575
356,325
69,100
114,600
848,575
206,895
241,435
470,120
420,330
732,280
671,560
988,965
Weighted
Average
Cost/ydJ
$8.37
6.24
6.97
8.16
7.22
7.10
6.04
6.35
6.76
10.65
6.51
9.33
10.20
14.79
End of Year
EN-R Const.
Cost Index
855
880
915
948
988
1,034
1,098
1,201
1,305
1,445
1,672
1,816
1,939
2,103
Adjusted
Unit Cost
Base - 1961
$8.37
6.06
6.51
7.36
6.25
5.86
4.70
4.52
4.43
6.30
3.31
4.39
4.50
6.01
Total
102
5,585,560
-------
the size and nature of the project. Only one or two unusually difficult and
expensive projects in a given year can have a seriously misleading effect on
the average costs. Note that the weighted average soil cement contract
costs, adjusted to 1961 dollars using the EN-R Construction Cost Index, show
a trend that is generally downward, with the 197^- adjusted, weighted average
cost lower than that for any of the first 5 years.
The following Portland Cement Association publications on soil cement
slope protection are available to residents of the United States and other
countries (except Canada) from the Order Processing Department, Portland
Cement Association, Old Orchard Road, Skokie, Illinois 60076. (Minimum order
$1.00. For orders under $5-00, add 50 cents for handling and surface mail.)
Residents of Canada should direct inquiries to the nearest Portland Cement
Association office (Edmonton, Alberta; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montreal,
Quebec; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; or Vancouver, British Columbia.)
PA074W
IS126W
RD010W
IS173W
IS166W
IS052W
Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams $1.20
Soil-Cement for Paving Slopes and Lining Ditches ..... 0.60
Dam Construction and Facing with Soil-Cement 0.60
Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams: Planning
and Design 0.30
Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams: Laboratory Tests 1.65
Suggested Specifications for Soil-Cement Slope Protection
for Earth Dams
IS167W Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams: Construction
Soil-Cement Slope Protection for Earth Dams: Field
Inspection and Control
PA127W
Soil-Cement Embankment Protection for Power Plant Cooling
Water Basins . .
0.15
0.75
0.90
0.60
76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-196
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
STATE-OF-THE-ART STUDY OF LAND IMPOUNDMENT TECHNIQUES
5. REPORT DATE
December 1978 (issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Wilford S. Stewart
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
P. 0. Box 8
Linden, New Jersey 07036
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803585
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental, Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/1-4
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officers: Richard B. Tabakin and Mary K. Stinson
340-6683
201/321-6683
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a literature search and state-of-the-art
survey of liner materials utilized in impoundments sites for the containment of
seven general types of industrial wastes. The objectives of the study were to
assemble the available information concerning the chemical and physical properties,
cost, and field performance data of various liner materials. The data obtained
from the literature search were supplemented with information obtained from various
liner manufacturers, fabricators, suppliers, installers, consultants, and trade
association representatives.
In addition, the report contains an engineering analysis of the chemical
compatibility of the liner materials with the industrial wastes of interest. From
this analysis, preliminary recommendations are made concerning the suitability of
the liner materials for containing the specified industrial wastes.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Industrial wastes, Plastics, Elastomers,
Linings, Permeability, Waste disposal,
Ponds, Pits, Lagoons (ponds)
Impoundment sites*, Mem-
brane liners*, Impervious
membranes*, Soil sealants*,
Asphalt membranes, Liquid
wastes, Liner installers,
Liner suppliers, Liner
fabricators
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
85
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
77
------- |