&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
9355.3-18FS
EPA/540/F-95/009
PB95-963412
August 1995
Presumptive Remedies:
CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS
Data Collection Guide
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division (5203G)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Municipal landfills constitute approximately 20 percent of all sites on the Superfund National Priorities List. Approximately 75 percent
of all CERCLA Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) Remedial Actions call for installation of a landfill cap. The remedy
selection process for MSWLFs is the basis of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, Conducting Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (U.S. EPA, 1991), which establishes the framework for
containment (including landfill cap construction, leachate collection and treatment, ground water treatment, and landfill gas collection
and treatment) as the presumptive remedy for MSWLFs.
In 1992, EPA introduced the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to accelerate all phases of the remedial process. The
presumptive remedy initiative is one tool for speeding up cleanups within SACM. One way that presumptive remedies can streamline
the remedial process is through early identification of data collection needs for the remedial design. By collecting design data prior
to issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), the need for additional field investigations during the remedial design (RD) will be
reduced, thereby accelerating the overall remedial process for these sites. Data needed for design also can be useful in better defining
the scope of the remedy and in improving the accuracy of the cost estimate in the ROD. Since containment is the presumptive remedy
for MSWLFs, the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) can begin making arrangements to collect landfill cap design data as soon as a
basis for remedial action is established (e.g., ground water contaminant concentrations exceeding maximum contaminant levels
[MCLs]).
This fact sheet identifies the data pertinent to landfill cap design that will be required for most sites. These data are organized within
six categories: (1) waste area delineation; (2) slope stability and settlement; (3) gas generation/migration; (4) existing cover assessment;
(5) surface water run-on/run-off management; and (6) clay sources. For reference, all data requirements and data collection methods
discussed in this document are summarized in a table at the end of this document (Table 2). In addition to the following guidance
provided in this fact sheet, RPMs should enlist the aid of technical experts familiar with landfill cap design in establishing data
collection needs for specific sites.
TECHNICAL AREA 1: WASTE AREA DELINEATION
The area of a landfill cap is determined by the horizontal extent of previous waste disposal. One of the major causes of cost escalation
for MSWLF sites has been the failure to establish the actual boundaries of the waste. Costly construction change orders have been
required to increase the area of the cap because wastes have been found to extend well beyond the edges of the intended cap. Waste
boundaries should be identified as accurately as practicable prior to initiation of the design.
Aerial photographs, maps, and a local newspaper subject
search may provide a historical record of the extent and type
of disposal activities conducted at the site. If appropriate,
residents could be interviewed to confirm or supplement
available information.
Field investigation should be used to confirm records and to
collect data to delineate the outer boundaries of the waste.
Field investigations normally include surface, subsurface, and
noninvasive geophysical explorations. Field investigation
methods that provide information on the surface and shallow
subsurface extent of waste include excavating shallow test pits,
using direct-push exploration techniques, and drilling bore-
holes. Additional subsurface investigation methods are used to
provide information on the vertical extent of waste.
Borings can be used to estimate waste thickness and condition
of existing cover soils adjacent to or underlying the waste.
-------
However, drilling into or through the waste and into the
underlying soils and/or bedrock should be performed only if
necessary, and only if the driller is experienced in the methods
used to prevent cross-contamination. Additional health and
safety concerns (especially exposure to methane gas) must be
addressed in the health and safety plan when borings are
located in the waste.
Visual evidence of the waste boundary or subsurface contami-
nation from these field investigation activities should be
recorded and, if necessary, verification samples should be
collected and shipped for laboratory analyses.
Surface geophysical methods also may be useful in delineating
the waste boundary. Each method has limitations, and the
selection of an appropriate method should be based on landfill
characteristics and data needs. The most commonly employed
geophysical methods include:
• Magnetometry (measures minor changes in earth's mag-
netic field)—location of waste boundary and distribution of
metallic waste
• Electromagnetic Conductivity (response to artificially
induced magnetic field)—location of areas of contrasting
conductivity, such as a landfill or natural deposits
• Ground-Penetrating Radar (reflection of electromagnetic
waves)—determination of horizontal extent and depth of
disturbed soils and buried objects (often used to confirm
magnetometry)
• Electrical Resistivity (measures earth's response to
electrical current)—determination of edge of landfill by
subsurface resistivity difference
• Seismic Refraction (natural or induced compression
waves)—estimation of depth to geologic strata and bedrock
adjacent to the landfill.
These noninvasive surface geophysical methods should be
performed prior to invasive explorations (e.g., borings or test
pits). This will allow for the more limited intrusion activities
to verify the findings of the noninvasive exploration methods.
TECHNICAL AREA 2: SLOPE STABILITY AND SETTLEMENT
Waste settlement and/or slope failure of the waste and existing cover soils can occur during construction of, or after completion of,
the cap. Waste settlement or slope failure (see Figure 1) may expose waste and require costly repairs. Data are needed on degree
of slope, existing cover materials, and existing cover soils to create cross-sectional diagrams for use in evaluating landfill slope
stability and the potential for settlement damage.
stability problems such as slippage failures in the waste and/or
existing cover soil. Differential settlement occurs when one
area of waste settles more readily than another because of
differences in moisture content, waste compaction, or waste
composition. Settlement (magnitudes typically range from 5
to 25 percent of the initial waste thickness), and especially
differential settlement, may create cracks in the cap and allow
rainwater to reach the waste. Changes in the topography of the
landfill because of settlement may also create areas on the cap
surface where rainwater can pond.
In creating the conceptual landfill cap design, three separate
calculations are conducted
• Stability of waste—largely depends on how well the waste
was compacted when placed, waste layer thicknesses, and
waste composition
• Stability of the cap (existing and proposed)
• Settlement of waste—largely depends on how well the
waste was compacted when placed, waste layer thicknesses,
age, rate of waste degradation, and waste composition.
Because of their heterogeneous nature, the settlement and
stability of municipal wastes are difficult to predict. Settle-
ment rates of selected areas of the waste can be measured by
placing survey monuments on top of the waste and taking
periodic measurements to determine the change in elevation of
Figure 1. Typical slope failure at MSWLF site.
Settlement in a landfill can be caused by factors such as:
biodegradation of wastes, consolidation of waste under the
weight of waste material and cap, deterioration of partially
filled containers (e.g., drums), or compaction of material
during landfill operation or cap installations. Possible
consequences of settlement include instability in the waste or
cover soil, which can damage the cap. In fact, a recent article
on cap design reports that "The center of a 20-foot diameter
section of a landfill cover, for instance, could settle only 0.5 to
1.5 feet before significant cracking [of the composite clay
liner] could be expected." (Koerner and Daniel, 1992) For
this reason, settlement potential and stability of the landfill
system should be evaluated concurrently.
The weight of the new cap can be significant enough to cause
additional waste settlement and compaction. The effect of this
additional weight may initiate differential settlement across the
cap, thus compromising the integrity of the cap, or create
-------
the monuments. Because settlement generally occurs slowly,
it is important to begin measurement early, preferably during
the remedial investigation.
The settlement of the waste depends on thickness and general
composition of the waste and existing topography. Compress-
ibility characteristics are derived from preload tests and
empirical correlations to data in the published literature. Data
from surveying monuments, settlement plates, and topographic
surveys can be used to determine surface settlement rates
across the landfill.
The stability of waste can be determined by evaluating the
following:
• Potentiometric surface and perched water table informa-
tion—can be determined using water level measurements
from piezometers and monitoring wells
• Thickness of waste
• Existing topography-can be determined from site
reconnaissance and topographic surveys.
Ground motions induced by earthquakes (seismic events) can
also affect cap performance through a decrease in slope sta-
bility. This fact sheet does not address the additional data
required for cap designs for landfills located in seismic impact
zones.
The waste thickness and composition can be determined by
observing and sampling (during completion of test pits,
borings, and hand-augered holes with an experienced driller)
and by searching through historical records.
The existing cover soil should also be evaluated to determine
its stability and potential for settlement. Studies for the
stability of the existing cover soil could include:
• Maximum Slope
• Soil classification
• Potentiometric surface
• Shear strength
• Thickness
• Density
Slope measurements and potentiometric surface derivations can
be obtained using the same procedures used to determine waste
characteristics. The remaining data can be obtained by boring,
piezocone penetrometer (PCPT), geophysical techniques, and
test pits. Existing cover soils should be classified by grain size
and hydrometer analysis, as well as by Atterberg limits
performed on borings and test pit samples. See the summary
table at the end of this fact sheet (Table 2) for recommended
tests to determine the shear strength for fine- and coarse-
grained soils.
The stability and settlement estimates for existing cover soil
depend largely on the complexity of the landfill site.
Investigations necessary to evaluate physical properties of the
existing cover soils will depend on the type(s) of soils
encountered. If the existing cover soils are soft silts and clays,
the settlement and stability evaluations will be more complex
than for sands and gravels. These soil samples should be
collected during drilling of monitoring wells to save time and
money, usually during the remedial investigation (RI).
Additional slope stability evaluations will be performed during
landfill cap design. Slopes greater than 3:1 (3 horizontal/
1 vertical) and landfills that have been constructed within or
adjacent to wetlands or low-strength soils are of particular
concern. These areas of concern should be identified during
RI/FS data collection to the extent possible.
TECHNICAL AREA 3: GAS GENERATION/MIGRATION
Assessment of the rate and composition of gas generated in the landfill will determine whether or not a gas collection layer should
be included as a component of the cap. Dangers of gas generation and uncontrolled migration include vegetative kill, health risks
from exposure, and explosive or lethal gas buildup within and outside of the landfill (see Figure 2). Field monitoring for the presence
of landfill gases is also important in developing safety parameters and reducing health risks to personnel working on site.
Volatile
Damage to Emissions
Vegetation
Lateral
Migration
Explosive
Risk
Figure 2. Vertical and lateral migration of
generated gas from MSWLF site.
Generation of gas typically results from the biological
decomposition of organic material in the wastes. The rate and
process of gas generation are dependent on the availability of
moisture, temperature, organic content of the waste, waste
particle size, and waste compaction.
Data immediately available in the field for assessing gas
generation are landfill gas composition and gas pressure. Gas
composition in soils usually is evaluated in the field by
monitoring or sampling through gas probes using a methane
meter, explosimeter, or organic vapor analyzer. Air samples
should be analyzed for the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) or semivolatile organic compounds
-------
(SVOCs). Moisture and heat content also can be determined
by the laboratory or in the field with hand-held instruments.
This information may be necessary to assess possible treatment
alternatives for collected gas.
Gas migration is a function of site geology, chemical
concentration, and pressure and density gradients. Gases
migrate through the path of least resistance (e.g., coarse and
porous soils, bedding stone along nearby water and sewer
lines). Data for evaluating gas migration control and treatment
methods include the composition of any existing landfill liners,
soil stratigraphy, depth to water table, proximity of human/
ecological receptors, and the locations of buried utilities and
other backfilled excavations and structures.
Gas migration pathways may be identified based on knowledge
of the site geology, hydrogeology, and surrounding soil charac-
teristics and by review of water and sewer maps. Some of
these data may be obtained by collecting and evaluating
samples from test pits, borings, or hand-augered holes.
Piezocone data also may be cost-effective for characterizing
the surrounding subsurface soils at larger MSWLF sites.
Potential receptors of landfill gas emissions may be identified
through site reconnaissance, and receptor locations should be
monitored to assess possible accumulation of migrant landfill
gases. Atmospheric monitoring at receptor locations may be
done using a flame ionization detector (FID), a photoionization
detector (PID), or a gas monitoring station; however, a PID
will not detect methane and thus cannot be used to assess
explosion risk. An oxygen meter using the Lower Explosive
Limit (LEL) indicator may be used to detect explosive levels
of gas.
Gas control is accomplished through either passive or active
gas collection. Treatment of collected gas may be required
depending on the concentration of hazardous constituents. The
gas control system required will depend on the proximity of
receptors, permeability of migration pathways, State and
Federal regulations and guidelines, and level and rate of gas
generation. Effective gas disposal methods include flaring,
processing and sale, and/or sorption.
Active gas collection may be necessary to control gas
migration when receptors are, or are expected to be, at risk.
Active gas collection generally is required when measurements
exceed either
• 5% methane at the properly line or cap edge, or
• 25% methane LEL in/at on-site structures. (This subject is
further addressed in the U.S. EPA Technology Brief Data
Requirements for Selecting Remedial Action Technology
[U.S. EPA, 1987].)
A gas pumping test can be used to improve the estimate of the
gas permeability of the waste materials and unsaturated soils,
number of collection wells required, piping size and configura-
tion, and blower requirements. However, gas pumping tests
should not be relied on without further measurement and
adjustment during construction.
TECHNICAL AREA 4: EXISTING COVER ASSESSMENT
Existing landfill caps should be evaluated to determine whether or not any components can be reused in the construction of a new
cap. Use of existing components could save both time and money.
Data on existing components can be readily collected because
only materials above the waste need be sampled. Sampling
locations and procedures that will minimize damage to
geosynthetic materials should be used. Sampling holes should,
at a minimum, be refilled with bentonite if the existing cap is
composed of clay. Geosynthetics should be patched with mate-
rials of equal properties following manufacturer's guidelines.
Additionally, the site reconnaissance should be used to
evaluate, in general, the need for regrading the landfill surface
to achieve proper side slopes. Appropriate limits to the
steepness of slopes can be determined from preliminary slope
stability calculations. Excavation into landfill waste materials
may be required to reduce slope steepness to acceptable limits.
Table 1 provides recommended guidelines for final cover
designs. The assessment of the existing cover should include
an evaluation of the potential for any components to meet final
cover guidelines.
Table 1. Existing Cover Assessment Data
Requirements and Recommended Guidelines
Data
Requirements
Recommended Guidelines"
(for Final Cover)
Slope (top) 3% to 5% minimum for drainage
Cap Area Covers horizontal waste limits
Vegetative/Soil Vegetative soil supporting healthy low
Layer shrubs or grass, no erosion, gullies or
deep-rooted plants, no unacceptable frost
heaves or settlement
Drainage Layer Permeability >1x102cm/s (sand, gravel,
or geosynthetic)
Barrier Layer Two-component (geomembrane atop
compacted clay") composite liner below
the frost zone
Gas Venting Either passive vents located at high points
System (not clogged, no settlement) or extraction
and treatment system working properly
a Refer to EPA's Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on
Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments (U.S. EPA,
1989).
b Clay compacted to a permeability < 1 x1 0 7cm/s, geomembrane
thickness > 20 mil.
-------
TECHNICAL AREA 5: SURFACE WATER RUN-ON/RUN-OFF MANAGEMENT
The surface area and gradient of landfill slopes will affect surface water control measures. For the protection of both the landfill cap
and adjacent areas (see Figure 3), the design of the final remedy should ensure that the site layout will provide adequate space for
surface water diversion and containment/retention impoundments.
Storm Run-off
Overflows
Containment
Impoundment
Silt-laden Water
Impacts Stream
Figure 3. Storm run-off impact from
an MSWLF site.
RCRA Subtitle D minimum requirements for MSWLFs (40
CFR Section 258.26) include providing a run-on control system
capable of preventing flow onto the active portion of a landfill
during the peak discharge from a 25-year rain storm. The
regulation also requires providing run-off control systems to
collect, at a minimum, the water volume resulting from a
24-hour, 25-year rainstorm. RCRA Subtitle D regulations
apply to the closure of active MSWLFs and may be Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for cer-
tain landfills at CERCLA sites as well.
The method for estimating run-on and run-off design
discharges should be based on engineering judgment and
on-site conditions (e.g., the Rational Method used by
hydrologists to determine overland flow). Detailed storm flow
calculations usually are done during the design phase. How-
ever, data for preliminary calculations should be collected early
enough to prepare an estimate of the cost of run-on/run-off
control measures as part of the remedy estimate for the ROD.
Because run-on and run-off control is required for operating
landfills, some landfills may already have surface water
diversion or containment impoundments that allow sediment
TECHNICAL AREA 6: CLAY SOURCES
to settle out of the run-off and that control discharge for a
25-year storm. Depending on when the landfill was designed
(with respect to applicable Federal and State regulations),
existing control structures may not have adequate capacity. In
addition, the RI/FS should identify areas for temporary surface
water controls for use during cap construction activities.
A review of the original design or site records available for a
landfill may provide information on design criteria for the
surface water control structures. Site reconnaissance should be
conducted to evaluate the physical condition of the system. If
there are no existing diversion or containment impoundments,
adequate space should be located on or off site to accommo-
date them. Property acquisition may be necessary if on-site
space is not available.
Prior to cap installation, collected or diverted run-on surface
waters often can be discharged to a nearby surface waterbody
or to a recharge basin. Discharge to surface water is
considered a point source discharge and must comply with the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements of the Clean Water Act. Because many States
have jurisdiction for the discharge of pollutants to surface
waters, permit requirements may vary depending on location,
although an NPDES permit is always needed. Other factors to
consider are the water quality and soil type, which can be
determined by analysis of surface water samples, visual and
sieve analyses of the soil, and review of NPDES compliance
data (if applicable).
After the cover is installed, the collected or diverted surface
water is not contaminated; therefore, diversion or containment
impoundment maintenance usually is limited to control of
vegetation and debris and sediment removal. Discharge to a
recharge basin is not considered a point source discharge and,
generally, regulators evaluate these basins for permit compli-
ance on a case-by-case basis.
A compacted clay layer is normally one of the primary components of an effective cap, provided that sources of clay (low-permeability
soil) are available at or near the landfill. Data-gathering activities should include looking for potential on-site/local clay deposits
for the cap construction. Manufactured geosynthetic clay liners should be considered if the required volume or physical properties
are not available in nearby soils. A comparison of geosynthetic clay liner material cost versus clay excavation and transport cost
should be completed before design commences.
Investigation of potential sources for clay should be initiated
prior to the preliminary conceptual cap design (which defines
the components of the cover). For information on clay
deposits, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes soil maps and
classifications by county. Additional information on the
availability of clay soils may be obtained from State natural
resource inventory programs; local contractors or engineering
firms practicing in the area; State and local highway officials,
-------
shallow borings, test pits, and hand-augered holes; and
geotechnical laboratory testing.
After potential sources of clay are identified, a site recon-
naissance may be conducted. The site reconnaissance should
include sample collection via hand-augered holes or shovels to
verify the availability of clay over the site.
Subsurface soil samples of the source area should be collected
later to determine resource quality (shear testing of layer
interfaces) and quantity. Procedures used to characterize clay
sources generally include:
• Excavation of at least one test pit for every 25,000 to
50,000 cubic yards
• Collection of soil samples from test pits for laboratory
characterization
• Shallow borings to confirm soil type, volume, and, in
certain instances, depth to ground water
• Laboratory testing of samples collected including: grain
size analysis, Atterberg limits, permeability testing,
moisture content, and compaction testing. Detailed
compaction requirements to meet construction quality
assurance objectives are provided in Quality Assurance and
Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities (U.S.
EPA, 1993 b).
If sufficient quantities of soil cover materials with appropriate
engineering properties are not available within an economically
practicable distance from the project site, geosynthetics or
processed natural materials should be considered. Geosynthetic
clay liners are generally manufactured by either sandwiching
bentonitic clays between geotextiles or affixing the bentonitic
clay to the bottom surface of a membrane. Thus, if clay is not
readily available, low-permeability layers of the cap may be
comprised of either available soil that is processed by adding
bentonite to reduce the permeability or geosynthetic clay liners.
For cap drainage layers, geosynthetic drainage nets may also
be used, in lieu of coarse sand and gravel, to meet performance
requirements. Information on geosynthetic clay liners and
drainage nets can be obtained from manufacturer catalogues.
CONCLUSION
For each MSWLF site where capping is clearly a preferred
remedy, the RPM should assemble a technical review team to
determine the design data to be collected. This team should
include experienced RPMs and technical experts familiar with
data collection needs for cap design. The team can help the
RPM in defining the field work required and its timing and in
reviewing the design data submitted by the contractor. In the
event that the contractor is changed (i.e., the RI/FS is Fund-led
and the design is switched to Potentially Responsible Party
[PRP]-led), the technical review team can assist the RPM in
transferring the pertinent collected design data to the new
contractor.
Table 2 summarizes the data needs and collection methods
presented in this fact sheet. This table should be used as a
reference when determining necessary design data collection
activities.
Table 2. Data Requirements and Collection Methods
Data Requirements
Data Collection Methods
Waste Area Delineation
Design/historical information
Horizontal extent of waste
Depth and thickness of waste
Historical records, personal interviews
Test pits, probes, hand-augered holes, magnetometry, electromagnetic
conductivity, ground-penetrating radar, electrical resistivity, seismic refraction
Borings, geophysical surveys
Slope Stability and Settlement'
Waste Evaluation
Slope measurement (A)
Potentiometric surface (A)
Compressibility characteristics (C)
Settlement rate (C)
Thickness of waste (A,C)
General waste composition (A,C)
Existing topography (A,C)
Slope inclinometers, topographic survey
Piezometers/monitoring wells
Preload testing, empirical correlations to published literature
Survey monuments, settlement plates, topographic survey
Observation and sampling during test pits, borings, hand-augered holes, historical
records, geophysical surveys
Observation and sampling during test pits, borings, hand-augered holes, historical
records, geophysical surveys
Site reconnaissance, topographic survey, historical photographs
(continued)
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Data Requirements
Data Collation Methods
Existing Cover Soil Evaluation'
Slope measurement (A,B)
Soil classification (B)
Potentiometric surface (A,C)
Shear strength (B)
Compressibility characteristics (C)
Density (B)
Topographic survey, slope inclinometers
Grain size analysis, hydrometer analysis, Atterberg limits performed on
borings/test pit samples
Piezometers/monitoring wells
Fine-grained soil (cohesion): Field and/or lab vane shear test, torvane, pocket
penetrometer, piezocone penetrometer, unconfined compressive strength,
empirical correlations to Standard Penetration Test (S-P-T)
Coarse grained soil (friction angle): Empirical correlations to S-P-T, direct shear
test, triaxial shear test, piezocone penetrometer
Consolidation tests performed on undisturbed tube samples collected from
borings. Empirical correlations to index properties (water content, plasticity).
Empirical correlations to S-P-T data, bulk density determination from undisturbed
tube samples (fine-grained soils only)
Gas Generation/Migration
Gas composition and gas pressure
Moisture and heat content
Migration pathways
Receptors
Gas probes, monitoring wells, laboratory samples
Laboratory samples or handheld instruments in the field
Water and sewer maps, piezocone, test pits, borings, hand-augered holes
Site reconnaissance, photoionization detector, flame ionization detector, air
monitoring station, oxygen meter
Existing Cover Assessment
Slope-top
Cap area
Vegetative/soil layer
Drainage layer
Barrier layer
Gas venting system
Site reconnaissance, topographic survey
Site reconnaissance, borings, test pits, geophysical survey
Site reconnaissance, topographic survey, test pits
Site reconnaissance, borings, test pits, hand-augered holes, field infiltrometer or
laboratory samples for hydraulic conductivity
Test pits, borings, hand-augered holes, Shelby tubes for permeability, laboratory
samples/analysis for shear strength, compaction curve, atterberg limits,
freeze/thaw cycling, water content
Site reconnaissance, gas character sampling, gas pumping tests
Run-on/Run-off Management
Estimated discharge, size of control
structures, treatment requirements
Climatic data
Run-on/run-off areas
(% vegetated, % paved)
Water quality
Soil types
Review of design records, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, detailed storm flow calculations
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Site reconnaissance, topographic surveys, aerial photographs
Surface water sampling and analysis
Visual, aerial photographs, and soil maps from the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS)
Clay Sources
Soil properties
Subsurface resource adequacy and
quantity (shear testing)
Geosynthetic clay liner properties
Soil maps from the SCS, local contractors or engineering firms, state/local
transportation officials, natural resource inventory programs, shallow borings,
hand-augered holes, test pits, and geotechnical laboratory testing
Grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, permeability test, moisture content,
compaction test, shallow borings, test pits, laboratory testing
Manufacturer catalogs, literature, EPA studies/guidance
"The letters following the slope stability and settlement and existing cover soil evaluation data requirements are referenced to the data needed to
perform the three separate calculations used to evaluate slope stability and settlement of the landfill cover (see Technical Area 2):
A = Stability of waste.
B = Stability of cap components.
C = Settlement of waste.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Koemer, R., and Daniel, D. 1992. Better cover-ups. Civil
Engineering, May:55-57
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Moses, D.). 1993. Checklist
for Landfill Cover Design. Draft. May.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Covers
for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/2-
85/002.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Data
Requirements for Selecting Remedial Action Technology.
EPA/600/2-87/001.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1989.
Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on
Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments.
EPA/530/SW-89/047. July.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991.
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for
CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. EPA/540/P-1/001.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. February.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a.
Engineering Bulletin: Landfill Covers. EPA/540/S-93/500.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b.
Technical Guidance Document: Quality Assurance and
Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities.
EPA/600/R-93/182
For more information contact:
Kenneth Skahn
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8801
or
Superfund Hotline
(800) 424-9346
NOTICE: This fact sheet is intended solely for informational purposes and cannot be relied upon to create any rights enforceable
by any party in litigation with the United States.
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (5203G)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |