CORRESPONDENCE_1982-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

° wastes annually ( but the states distinct from rainwater atulating. last commercially rated chemical My statistical analysis of these data landfill closed in 1976. By 1977 five indicates that a significant increase has There Bre foul key element8 It major firms were making plans to oper- occurred in at least half of the indica- in a secure landfill.8 bottom ate their own secure landfills for on-site tors. By the criteria established in the liner; a leachate COJ/eCtlOn a disposal of chemical wastes. All five ogre. n e landfill's primary liner system; a Cover; and the i s landfills were eventually constructed probably sho ld be judged to be leak- nature/hydrogeo/ogic setting. and are operating today. However, four_ tng- Each of these elements Is of the five have experienced operation4l critical to success. roblems. -- -- Monsanto dusFPlel Chemical Corp. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Mo nto Industrial Chemical Corp. R s ught permission from the DEP in (PVC) film, with a leak detector bo DuPont applied in April, 1978,to the 1977 to establish a 6-acre single-lined tween them. By October, fluid's werl New Jersey Department of Environ- landfill for chemical waste disposal in collecting in the leak detector are mental Protection (DEP) for a permit Bridgeport, N.J. The DEP persuaded between the liners at the rate of abouts to operate a 10-acre double-lined se- Monsanto that a double-lined landfillgallons (ll liters) per day; and DEF - with a leak detector made best sense officials had ordered the firm to'ana. cure landfill for chemical waste.dispos al in Carneys Point, N.J. Two five-acre and the company proceeded with con- lyze samples of the fluids regularly f� cells were constructed, each with two struction. 13 characteristics. liners of 0.03 inch (0.76 mm) nylon The Monsanto site had previously Using the same procedure agreed to reinforced Hypalon®—a tough polymer been used by the U.S. Army Corps of by DuPont and the state (designating film—and each with aleak detector, or Engineers for disposal of material an early set of data as baseline and telltale between the two liners. dredged from the bottom of the nearby comparing subsequent data to it,to see A leak detector consists o popes that Delaware River. DEP engineers there- if concentrations of contaminants are collect any fluids that accumulate be- fore feared that soil on the site would be increasing), statistical analysis of the ' tween the two liners.Presence of liquids subject to compaction in the future as J.T. Baker sites convinces me that the in the leak detector is a signal that the waste load increased in the landfill. primary liners of two of the landfills aro something may a goin wrong wit t_e_ Monsanto therefore mechanically com- leaking. J.T. Baker officials continue to uoDer 1rner patted the soil to 2700 pounds per believe that the fluids, which are now The new landfill went into operation square foot and installed a 0.9-inch (23 accumulating at the rate of about I gal. in January, 1979. Three months later mm) fabric liner of BIDIM®, a propri- Ion (4 liters) per day, represent only DuPont management reported the pres- etary polyester fiber somewhat like the rainwater trapped during construction. ence of fluids in the leak detector area, felt pads that people sometimes put accumulating at 124 gallons (469 li- beneath rugs--except that BIDIM is Tome River Chemical Corp. tars) per day.The company argued that lighter, stronger, and more durable Toms River Chemical (TRC),a sub• the fluids were rainwater that had been than felt, and water passes through it sidiary of Ciba-Geigy, sought permis- trapped between the liners during con- more easily. Monsanto sells BIDIM to cion in 1976 to create a secure chemical struction. The state feared that the pri- provide subsurface support for road- landfill in Dover, N.J. As constructed, mary liner (the upper liner, closest to ways, railway roadbeds, and construc- the lower liner is 0.02 inch (0.5 mm) '. the wastes) was leaking. The state tion sites.—Above the BIDIM liner, PVC and the u immediately restricted the kinds of Monsanto p ced 12 in. (30.5 cm of peer liner is Ode inch wastes that could be landfilled at the clay with a efficient of permeability between hemvC with a leak detector site, but subsequently relented after of trw x 10 8 c sec.Such a coefficient of The permit to- operate the site ra. reaching an agreement with DuPont. bilit would permit water to quires the firm to add a lithium salt g Under the agreement DuPont would thr gh 1.6 em (0.6 in.) of such the wastes as a tracer. If lithium analyze samples of the fluids being col- clay in a year's time. Above that layer appears in the leak detector area,it is a !acted in the leak detector. (By this of clay came the leak detector; above signal that leakage through the upper' time the rate of accumulation had that came another 18 in. (45.7 cm) of . liner is Occurring. The new landfill' decreased to a steady 50 gallons (189 the same clay. began operation in January, 1979. And liters) per day.) DuPont suggested,and The new landfill went into operation in April DEP officials visiting the site the state agreed, that an increase in in mid-August, 1978. Within a month discovered four feet of liquids standing four indicators—total dissolved solids Monsanto officials had written to the in the leak detector area.Subsequently,'' (TDS), chemical oxygen demand DEP saying fluids were collecting in company officials determined that the (COD), phenol 'Compounds, and' the leak detector area. The accumula- leak rate averages anywhere from '60 color—would signal a leak occurring as tion rate varied from 26 gallons (98 li- gallons (227 liters) to 131 gallons (495 ters) to 48 gallons (182 liters) per liters) per day. Lithium has consis' day• tently been detected at low levels in the Now Jersey's experience with Monsanto hired consulting hydrolo- leak detector fluids. hazardous-waste landfills gists Geraghty and Miller to help find I have described my study'of these shows that synthetic liners the leak but after four years the effort four landfills in greater detail else are prone to problems—and has not been successful. where.(I I) 1 must stress here that I that clay liners also have their J.T. Baker Chemical Co. have no evidence that any of these land- troubles. Also, landfill covers fills is contaminating groundwater or J.T. Baker Chemical Co. of Phillips- significantly impacting the environ- 8r@ vulnerable to attack from: burg, N.J., applied to the DEP in 1976 ment. There are groundwater monitor erosion; vegetation; -'' for permission to add several new land- ing wells around each of the sites but soft-dw®/ling mammals; fills for disposal of chemical wastes. As have not yet analyzed the monitoring sunlight, subsidence, and finally constructed in summer, 1979, data. human activities., the new landfills consist of two liners of New Jersey's experience with secure 0.03 inch (0.76 mm) polyvinyl chloride landfills should be of use to people in 54 Civil Engineering-ASCE September 1982 J