Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 96, Issue 1–3, pp 283–311 | Cite as

Characterization of Infiltration Rates from Landfills: Supporting Groundwater Modeling Efforts

  • Horace Moo-Young
  • Barnes Johnson
  • Ann Johnson
  • David Carson
  • Christine Lew
  • Salley Liu
  • Katherine Hancock
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature to characterize infiltration rates from landfill liners to support groundwater modeling efforts. The focus of this investigation was on collecting studies that describe the performance of liners ‘as installed’ or ‘as operated’. This document reviews the state of the science and practice on the infiltration rate through compacted clay liner (CCL) for 149 sites and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) for 1 site. In addition, it reviews the leakage rate through geomembrane (GM) liners and composite liners for 259 sites. For compacted clay liners (CCL), there was limited information on infiltration rates (i.e., only 9 sites reported infiltration rates.), thus, it was difficult to develop a national distribution. The field hydraulic conductivities for natural clay liners range from 1 × 10-9cm s-1to 1 × 10-4cm s-1, with an average of 6.5 × 10-8cm s-1. There was limited information on geosynthetic clay liner. For composite lined and geomembrane systems, the leak detection system flow rates were utilized. The average monthly flow rate for composite liners ranged from 0–32 lphd for geomembrane and GCL systems to 0 to 1410 lphd for geomembrane and CCL systems. The increased infiltration for the geomembrane and CCL system may be attributed to consolidation water from the clay.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrecht, K. A. and Cartwright, K.: 1989, ‘Infiltration and hydraulic conductivity of a compacted earthen liner’, Ground Water 27, 14–19.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, C. H. and Daniel, D. E.: 1994, ‘Minimum thickness of compacted soil liners: II. Analysis and case histories’, J. Geotech. Eng. 120, 153–172.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, C. H., Daniel, D. E. and Boutwell, G. P.: 1999, ‘Field performance of compacted clay liners’, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125, 390–403.Google Scholar
  4. Bergstrom, W. R., Creamer, P. D., Petrusha, H. and Benson, C. H.: 1995, ‘Field Performance of a Double Liner Test Pad’, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Bergstrom, W. R., Takacs, M. J. and Olson, M. A.: 1993, ‘Behavior of Five Operating Landfill Leak Detection Systems’, '93, Marina Del Rey, California.Google Scholar
  6. Bonaparte, R.: 1995, ‘Long-Term Performance of Landfills’, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, ASCE, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bonaparte, R. and Gross, B. A.: 1990, ‘Field Behavior of Double-Liner Systems’,Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  8. Bonaparte, R. and Gross, B. A.: 1993, LDCRS Flow from Double Lined Landfills and Surface Impoundments, EPA/600/R-93/070. NTIS Publication PB93–179885. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  9. Bonaparte, R., Giroud, J. P. and Gross, B. A.: 1989. ‘Rates of Leakage through Landfill Liners’, Proceeding of the Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, K. and Krapac, I. G.: 1990, ‘Construction and Performance of a Long-Term Earthen Liner Experiment’, Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  11. Daniel, D. E.: 1984. ‘Predicting hydraulic conductivity of clay liners’, J. Geotech. Eng. 110, 285–300.Google Scholar
  12. Daniel, D. E.: 1989, ‘In situ hydraulic conductivity tests for compacted clays’, J. Geotech. Eng. 115, 1205–1226.Google Scholar
  13. Darilek, G. T., Laine G. L. and Parra, J. O.: 1989, ‘The Electrical Leak Location Method for Geomembrane Liners: Development and Applications’, Proceedings of the Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 456–466.Google Scholar
  14. Day, S. R. and Daniel, D. E.: 1985, ‘Hydraulic conductivity of two prototype clay liners’, J. Geotech. Eng. 111, 957–970.Google Scholar
  15. Eith, A. W. and Koerner, G. R.: 1997, ‘Assessment of HDPE geomembrane performance in a municipal waste landfill double liner system after eight years of service’, Geotextiles Geomembranes 15, 277–287.Google Scholar
  16. Elsbury, B. R., Daniel, D. E., Sraders, G. A. and Anderson, D. C.: 1990, ‘Lessons learned from compacted clay liner’, J. Geotech. Eng. 116, 1641–1660.Google Scholar
  17. Giardino, V. G. and Guglielmetti, J. L.: 1997, ‘Long-term performance of a hazardous waste landfill’, Geotextiles Geomembranes 15, 255–267.Google Scholar
  18. Giroud, J. P., Badu-Tweneboah, K. and Bonaparte, R.: 1992, ‘Rate of leakage through composite liner due to geomembrane defects’, Geotextiles Geomembranes 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
  19. Giroud, J. P. and Bonaparte, R.: 1989a, ‘Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes-part I. Geomembrane liners’, Geotextiles Geomembranes 8, 27–67.Google Scholar
  20. Giroud, J. P. and Bonaparte, R.: 1989b, Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes-part II. Composite liners’, Geotextiles Geomembranes 8, 71–111.Google Scholar
  21. Gordon, M. E., Huebner, P. M. and Kmet, P.: 1984, ‘An Evaluation of the Performance of Four Clay-Lined Landfills inWisconsin’, Seventh Annual Madison Waste Conference: Municipal and Industrial Waste, pp. 399–460.Google Scholar
  22. Gordon, M. E., Huebner, P. M. and Miazga, T. J.: 1989, ‘Hydraulic conductivity of three landfill clay liners’, J. Geotech. Eng.. 115, 1148–1160.Google Scholar
  23. Gross, B. A., Bonaparte, R. and Giroud, J. P.: 1990, ‘Evaluation of Flow from Landfill Leakage Detection Layers’, International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Hartley, R. P.: 1992, Surface Impoundments, Design, Construction, and Operation, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  25. Huebner, P. M. and Gordon, M. E.: 1995, ‘Estimating Contaminant Breakthrough for a Clay-Lined Municipal Solid Waste Landfill’, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, ASCE, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, G. W., Crumley, W. S. and Boutwell, G. P.: 1990, ‘Field Verification of Clay Liner Hydraulic Conductivity’, Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26. American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  27. King, K. S., Quigley, R. M., Fernandez, F., Reades, D. W. and Bacopoulos, A.: 1993, ‘Hydraulic conductivity and diffusion monitoring of the Keele Valley landfill liner, Maple, Ontario’, Canad. Geotech. J. 30, 124–134.Google Scholar
  28. Laine, D. L.: 1991, ‘Analysis of Pinhole Seam leaks Located in Geomembrane Liners Using the Electrical Leak Location Method: Case Histories’, Proceedings of the Geosynthetics 1991, Atlanta, GA, pp. 239–253.Google Scholar
  29. Laine, D. L. and Miklas, M. P.: 1989, ‘Detection and Location of Leaks in Geomembrane Liners Using an Electrical Method: Case Histories’, ‘89, Proceedings of the 10th National Conference, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  30. Laine, D. L. and Darilek, G. T.: 1993, ‘Locating Leaks in Geomembrane Liners of Landfills Covered with a Protective Soil’, Proceeding of Geosynthetics 1993, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  31. Lichtwardt, M. A. and Comer, A. I.: 1997, ‘Geosynthetics in a Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond Environment’, Proceeding of Geosynthetics 1997, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  32. Luettich, S. M., Bonaparte, R., Coleman, B. A. and Tomlinson, H. M.: 1995, ‘Preconstruction Testing of Two Soil Liner Materials’, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  33. Maule, J., Lowe, R. K. and McCulloch, J. L.: 1993, ‘Performance evaluation of synthetically lined landfills’, Tappi J. 76, 172–176.Google Scholar
  34. McQuade, S. J. and Needham, A. D.: 1999, ‘Geomembrane liner defects-causes, frequency, and avoidance’, Proc. Institu. Civil Eng., Geotech. Eng. 137, 203–213.Google Scholar
  35. Moo-Young, H. K. and Zimmie, T. F.: 1997, ‘Waste minimization and reuse of paper mill sludges as landfill covers: A case study’, J. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 593–605.Google Scholar
  36. Mosley, N. G. and Crozier, F.: 1995, ‘Application of a Geomembrane Leak Location Survey at a U.K. Waste Disposal Facility’, Engineering Geology of Waste Disposal, Geological Society Engineering Geology. Special Publication No. 11, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
  37. O'sadnick, D. L., Simpson, B. E. and Kasel, G. K.: 1995, ‘Evaluation and Performance of a Sand/Bentonite Liner’, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 46, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  38. Othman, M. A., Bonaparte, R. and Gross, B. A.: 1997, ‘Preliminary results of composite liner field performance study’, Geotextiles Geomembranes, 15, 289–312.Google Scholar
  39. Peggs, I. D.: 1993, ‘Practical Geoelectric Leak Surveys with Hand-Held, Remote, and Water Lance Probes’, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 1993, pp. 1523–1532.Google Scholar
  40. Phaneuf, R. J.: 1996, A State's Perspective on CQA/CQC in Environmental Containment System Design and Construction, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Division of Solid Waste, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Reades, D. W., Lahti, L. R., Quigley, R. and Bacopoulos, A.: 1990, ‘Detailed Case History of Clay Liner Performance’, Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  42. Rogowski, A. S.: 1985, ‘Effectiveness of a Compacted Clay Liner in Preventing Ground Water Contamination’, Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, pp. 412–429.Google Scholar
  43. Rollin, A. L., Marcotte, M., Jacquelin, T. and Chaput, L.: 1999, ‘Leak Location in Exposed Geomembrane Liners using an Electrical Leak Detection Technique’, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 1999, pp. 615–626.Google Scholar
  44. Sai, J. O. and Anderson, D. C.: 1990, ‘Field hydraulic conductivity tests for compacted soil liners’, Geotech. Testing J. 13, 215–225.Google Scholar
  45. Tedder, R. B.: 1997, ‘Evaluating the Performance of Florida Double-lined Landfills’, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 1997, pp. 425–438.Google Scholar
  46. Trast, J. M. and Benson, C. H.: 1995, ‘Estimating field hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay’, J. Geotech. Eng. 121, 736–739.Google Scholar
  47. Trautwein, S. J. and Williams, C. E.: 1990, ‘Performance Evaluation of Earthen Liners’, Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, American Society Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA): 1992, Action Leakage Rates for Leak Detection Systems. Supplemental Background Document for the Final Double Liners and Leak Detection Systems Rule for Hazardous Waste Landfills, Waste Piles, and Surface Impoundments. EPA/530-R–92–004. NTIS Publication PB92–128214. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C., January.Google Scholar
  49. U.S. EPA: 1996, Report of 1995 Workshop on Geosynthetic Clay Liners, EPA/600/R-96/149, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  50. U.S. EPA: 1998, Assessment and Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinatti, Ohio, Draft Final.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. EPA: 1999a, Guide for Industrial Waste Management, EPA/530-R–99–001, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  52. U.S. EPA: 1999b, Technical Background Document: Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM), Ground Water Model to Support the Guide for Industrial Waste Management, EPA530-R–99–002.Google Scholar
  53. U.S. EPA: 1999c, User's Guide for the Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM): Tier 1 Look-Up Tables and Tier 2 Neural Networks, EPA530-R–99–003.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. EPA: 2001, Industrial Surface Impoundments in the United States, EPA530-R–01–005.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson-Fahmy, R. F. and Koerner, R. M.: 1995, ‘Leakage Rates through Holes in Geomembranes Overlying Geosynthetic Clay Liners’, Proceeding of Geosynthetics 1995, pp. 655–668.Google Scholar
  56. Workman, J. P.: 1993, ‘Interpretation of Leakage Rates in Double-Liner Systems’, Proceedings 7th Geosynthetic Research Institute Seminar, pp. 95–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Horace Moo-Young
    • 1
  • Barnes Johnson
    • 2
  • Ann Johnson
    • 3
  • David Carson
    • 4
  • Christine Lew
    • 5
  • Salley Liu
    • 5
  • Katherine Hancock
    • 5
  1. 1.Lehigh University, Civil and Environmental EngineeringBethlehemU.S.A. (author for correspondence
  2. 2.Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S.A
  3. 3.Office of Policy Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S.A
  4. 4.Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiU.S.A
  5. 5.Tetra Tech, Inc.LafayetteU.S.A

Personalised recommendations