liner.

html Page 1 of 9

Landfills Leak
Introduction of Leakage Public Testimony

Cases and Studies on Liner Leakage

Bibliography of Leakage Studies

Water Flow in Desert Site

Danger of Leakage in Desert Site

Inadequacy of Proposed Monitoring

Presentation By Dennis E. Williams, Ph.D.

Before The Board Of Supervisors Of San Bernardino County

Madame Chair and Honorable Supervisors -

My presentation today will focus on the following issues:

1. Quantity And Quality Of Ground Water Available In The Cadiz Valley Area

2. Ground Water Flow Directions And Rates

3. Probable Impacts Of The Bolo Station Landfill On Ground Water Development

- Leakage of leachate into ground water is inevitable. It will result from

inherent leaks in the liner system

- Ground water contamination may result from leakage of small amounts of

leachate. TCE is a carcinogen and one of the volatile organic compounds
typically found in landfill leachate. It would take less than 4 drops of
TCE mixed with the water in an average sized swimming pool (20,000 gallons)
to render the water undrinkable (in accordance with drinking water standards).
<

Documented Cases Of Modern Landfill Liner Leakage:

Over the past several years, I have had extensive project experience with
landfills and landfill liners of all types. I have conducted research on
landfill liners and siting of landfills in Southern California. As part of
this research I have investigated documented cases in the scientific
literature, of modern composite landfill liner leakage.

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 2 of 9

Based on the scientific literature, it is well documented that landfill

liners will eventually leak. Geomembrane-lined landfills are a relatively
new technology, and as a result, the number of documented cases through
double-lined landfills is still being quantified. Holes in geomembranes,
especially along seams, are the most immediate mechanism for leakage. My
literature research identified at least 34 documented cases of leakage
through modern landfill liner systems.

Double-lined landfill liner systems, such as that proposed for the Bolo
Station Landfill, are too new for quantification of secondary liner leakage.

State officials with the divisions of solid waste of the departments of

environmental services of a number of U.S. states were contacted regarding
experience with liner leakage. According to those officials, at least nine
landfill facilities (mostly double-lined) exhibited leakage through the
primary liner. Several of these officials also explained that there is
currently no reliable method of assessing if leakage is occurring through
the secondary liner.

Based on the literature review and contact with regulatory agencies, leakage
through the primary liner of these modern-lined facilities has been, and is
occurring. Authorities also agree, that if leaks occur in primary liners,
leaks are expected to occur in secondary liners as well. The following is a
discussion of some of those documented cases and studies.

1. Daren Laine (1989), a member of the Southwest Research Institute,

authored a paper presenting the results of an investigation of 61 new or
in-service geomembrane-lined waste storage facilities using the electrical
leak location method. Approximately 92% of the facilities tested were HDPE
geomembranes ranging in thickness from 60 mil to 100 mils.

He discovered that leaks were found in every liner except those at three
smaller facilities. A total of 1,409 leaks were located at the 61 sites
surveyed, ranging from 0.3 to 5 leaks per 10,000 square ft, with an average
of 3.2 leaks per 10,000 square ft. Leaks were detected in both the parent
material and the seams. 87% of the leaks detected were in the seams with
the remaining 13% in the parent material.

Personal communication with Mr. Laine revealed that if leaks occur in the
primary liner, one can expect leaks in the secondary liner. These leaks can
be as high as 20-50 per acre. Furthermore, he explained the problem with
the secondary liner is that it is extremely difficult to test for leaks once
landfill operation begins, and that in the cases he has seen, nobody wants
to know if the secondary liner is leaking.

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 3 of 9

2. A paper authored by Bonaparte and Gross (1990) summarized the field data
collected regarding flow of liquid from the leakage detection layers of
double-liner systems at 23 double-lined landfills and 7 surface impoundment
facilities. There are four different types of facilities, ranging from
Group I to Group IV. Group I and II facilities are constructed with a
geomembrane top liner and a geonet (Group I) or sand (Group II) leakage
detection layer. Group III and IV facilities are constructed with composite
top liners and geonet (for Group III) or sand (for Group IV) leakage
detection layers.

Leakage was detected in the leakage detection layer of all sixteen Group I
and II type landfills studied.

And with one exception, all of the Group III landfill cells exhibited flows
from their leakage detection layers. Leakage was detected in the leakage
detection layer in nine of the eleven Group IV facilities.

The leakage was attributed to top liner leakage. The seven cells of Group I
exhibited top liner leakage ranging from 0.5 to 27 gallons per day per acre
(gpd/acre), with maximum flow rates [usually following storm events] of up
to about three times the average values. The liner leak rates from the nine
Group II landfill cells ranged from 0.5 to 20 gpd/acre, with maximum flow
being up to ten times larger than the average values. The paper summarizes
that "...properly constructed geomembrane top liners (Group I and II) that
have undergone CQA (construction quality assurance) cannot consistently
limit top liner leakage to a value of less than 5 gpd/acre."

Another important statement of this study was as follows: "Based on the

data in this study, an action leakage rate of 50 lphd [.5 gpd/acre] is too
restrictive and presents a performance standard that, if promulgated by US
EPA, frequently will not be met by facilities that were constructed to
present standards with rigorous third-party CQA programs. An action leakage
rate of 200 lphd [2.0 gpd/acre] appears to be reasonable for landfills that
have been constructed using rigorous third-party CQA programs." (p. 71).

This study pointed out twenty cases of double-lined landfills, all with
"state of the art construction for their time," and all which leak.

3. The next paper, also by Gross and Bonaparte (1990), documented two more
cases of modern landfill liner leakage.

Landfill A (actual name not given) is a double-lined landfill made up of

three cells, and consisted of a sand leachate collection layer, geomembrane
top liner, geonet leakage detection layer, and composite bottom liner.
Landfill A exhibited high leakage rates through the top liner immediately

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 4 of 9

following construction due to high initial heads on the liner. At 21 to 33

months after construction, the average measured top liner leakage rate from
cells 1 and 2 ranged from 1.7 to 4.6 gpd/acre.

Landfill B was a double-lined landfill made up of four cells, and consisted

of a sand leachate collection layer, geomembrane top liner, sand leakage
detection layer, and composite bottom liner. Potential sources of leakage
from this configuration were top liner leakage, construction water,
compression water, and consolidation water. Following closure of Cell 1, no
flow was observed until about 46 months after construction, when a small
sustained flow averaging 2 gpd/acre began. The average recorded flow rate
increased to 13 gpd/acre by 52 months after construction. Investigation of
the situation led to the conclusion that the flow was due to leakage through
a hole that developed in the geomembrane at the leachate collection pipe
penetration.

4. The next study by Giroud (1989) discussed several examples of the

detection of leaks in double-lined landfills. In one case, the top liner of
a landfill exhibited a total leakage rate of 250 gpd [unspecified area]
through the geomembrane top liner when the landfill was filled with 6 inches
of water. The authors calculated that a 4 mm diameter circular hole could
have been the source of this leakage rate. According to the authors, there
is no guarantee that these defects will not occur.

In another case, one seam defect was detected every 9 meters (30 ft) of seam
length in a large landfill with a double liner.

The scientific literature is filled with cases of double-lined, modern

landfills which have leaked. And although the proposed liner system for the
Bolo Station Landfill uses "state of the art technology" and is superior to
the Subtitle D and California standards for liners, similar liners have only
been tested in landfills for approximately 10 years. Long-term performance
of the system has not been determined. History has shown that the liner
cannot possibly be guaranteed to prevent leakage in the future.
Construction defects, installation procedures, as well as long-term aging
and degeneration of liner materials is certain for all landfill liner
systems, including the one proposed for the Bolo Station Landfill.

REFERENCES:

Line, D.L., and Miklas, M.P., 1989, Detection and Location of Leaks in
Geomembrane Liners Using an Electrical Method: Case Histories, 10th
National Superfund Conference, November 27-29, 1989, Washington D.C.

Bonaparte, R. and Gross, B.A., 1990, Field Behavior of Double-Liner Systems

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 5 of 9

in Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance:

ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, November 1990, pp. 52-83.

Gross, B.A., Bonaparte, R., and J.P. Giroud, 1990, Evaluation of Flow from
Landfill Leakage Detection Layers: Proceedings Fourth International
Conference on Geotextiles, Volume 2, The Hague, June 1990, pp. 481-486.

Giroud, J.P. and Bonaparte, R., 1989, Leakage Through Liners Constructed
With Geomembranes - Part I, Geomembrane Liners: Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Volume 8, pp. 27-67.

GEOSCIENCE Support Services, Inc.

1326 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 3
P.O. Box 220
Claremont, CA 91711

May 9, 1995

Water Quality Of Typical Landfill Leachate:

Previous studies I have conducted on other Class III landfills in Southern

California have all shown leakage of leachate into the ground water basins
in which they were located. Typical pollutants include an extensive list of
volatile organic compounds such as TCE, PCE, Chlorobenzene, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane, and Vinyl Chloride, some of which are carcinogenic. Other
general mineral constituents found in high concentrations in landfill
leachate are total dissolved solids and chloride. Measurement of leachate
from a Class III landfill in the San Gabriel Valley has shown TDS of 72,000
ppm, chloride of 5,100 ppm and hardness of 36,000 ppm.

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF GROUND WATER AVAILABLE IN THE CADIZ

VALLEY AREA:

Our preliminary estimates of recoverable water tributary to the Cadiz and

Fenner Valleys range between 20,000 to 30,000 acre-ft/yr. Our preliminary
estimates of the amount of fresh ground water in storage ranges between 25
million to 40 million acre-ft.

Ground water quality in the Cadiz Valley area is excellent. Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) typically ranges between 250 to 400
ppm. The recommended drinking water standard for TDS is 1,000 ppm. As Mr.
Liggett pointed out in his presentation, the State Water Resources Control
Board has in their resolution 88-63 resolved that ground waters having TDS
of 3,000 ppm or less are "potentially suitable for municipal or domestic
water supply and should be so designated by the Regional Boards".

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 6 of 9

Similarly, chloride concentrations typically range

between 40 to 50 ppm in the Cadiz Valley area. The recommended drinking
water standard for chloride is 250 ppm.

GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTIONS AND RATES

The equation used to calculate seepage velocity is:

Vs = (K/Theta 7.48)(Delta h/Delta x)

where:

Vs = Seepage Velocity, [ft/day]

K = hydraulic conductivity, [gpd/square ft]

Delta h/Delta x = hydraulic gradient [ft/ft]

Theta = effective porosity [fraction]

Hydraulic conductivity based on irrigation well pumping test data from the
Cadiz Land Company wells ranges from 500 - 1,000 gpd/square ft in the
younger alluvial sediments (upper 350 ft). The hydraulic gradient as
measured from recent water elevation contours ranges from approximately 5
ft/mi in the Bolo Station area to over 10 ft/mi in the Cadiz Land Company
area. The effective porosity of the alluvial materials in the basin is
estimated to range from 0.10 to 0.25.

Ground water is presently flowing southerly towards Bristol Dry Lake. In

the Fenner Gap, flow is southwest. In the Orange Blossom Wash area, flow is
south and southeast. Ground water flow rates range between 1 to 3 ft/day in
the area.

Future ground water development by Cadiz Land Company, as authorized under

their 1993 EIR, will result in regional drawdowns which will alter present
ground water flow directions. The future development plans of
the Cadiz Land Company will be full operation at that time. Ground water
elevations after project development were calculated by subtracting the
regional drawdown contours from present water levels. As shown in Figure 4,
after project implementation, ground water will flow eastward from the area
of the Bolo Station landfill to the Cadiz Land Company wellfields. The
estimated flow rates may range as high as 5 ft/day towards the wellfields.

These drawdown conditions, which include a change in ground water flow

directions, were unanimously approved by this Board in November of 1993 with
no objections from Rail-Cycle. Rail-Cycle, however, does not acknowledge

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 7 of 9

the future hydrologic conditions in their EIR.

PROBABLE IMPACTS OF BOLO STATION LANDFILL ON THE CADIZ LAND

COMPANY PROJECT:

After implementation of Cadiz Land Company's development project, ground

water flow will change in the vicinity of the proposed Bolo Station
Landfill. Ground water will flow offsite from the landfill to the
wellfields, carrying any leachate which may have leaked through the liner
systems. This leachate could impact production wells within five years.

Probable Flow Paths Of Pollution:

Two routes of ground water pollution are of major concern to the Cadiz Land
Company. Depending on the timing and location of leachate leakage,
contaminated water from beneath the landfill will either flow into the
shallow ground water of Bristol Lake, or it will be induced to flow toward
the Cadiz Land Company well fields.

Flow towards Bristol Lake will occur prior to the time pumping in the Cadiz
well fields causes a shift in flow direction. The contaminants will
eventually be brought to the surface of the lake because of the extremely
high water table. This will cause a whole host of pollution problems, such
as the dissemination of contaminants by wind, as described by Mr. Liggett.

Once the Cadiz Land Company project development plans are fully operational
and some of the ground water beneath the landfill is flowing towards the
well fields, any leakage of leachate will degrade ground water quality.
Ground water containing leachate could reach the Cadiz wells in less than
five years.

Inadequacy Of The Proposed Monitoring Program:

Ground water monitoring wells are proposed at 1,000 ft intervals along the
"down gradient" perimeters (southern and western edges) of the landfill, and
at approximately 2,000 ft intervals along the "up gradient" perimeters
(northern and eastern edges) of the landfill, as shown in Figure 5.2.2 of
the Supplement to the Draft EIR. Quarterly monitoring periods are proposed.
As stated in the Supplement to the Draft EIR, these plans are subject to
change, as Rail-Cycle will be working with RWQCB on the final monitoring
program.

Rail-Cycle has obviously not acknowledged the Cadiz Land Company's future
ground water development plans as authorized under the Company's 1993 EIR.
In Response to Comment 35-19 in the Final EIR Rail-Cycle it was stated that
it is "physically impossible for any subsurface contamination from the

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 8 of 9

landfill site to affect agricultural properties or any other use of fresh

water in the basin. Ground water does not move from the landfill site
toward CLC properties." Several other responses to comments offer the same
argument.

As shown in the above discussions, after Cadiz Land Company's project

implementation, ground water flow directions will be easterly from the Bolo
Station Landfill towards the Company's wellfields. The monitoring program
proposed by Rail Cycle will be inadequate to detect probable paths of
leachate migration. This is due to the large spacing between the monitoring
wells which are also confined only to the perimeter of the landfill.

Preferential pathways for ground water movement in narrow channels or

permeable zones are likely to exist within the alluvial fan depositional
environment of the aquifer. Monitoring wells spaced 1,000 to 2,000 ft apart
are much too dispersed to detect migration of leachate which may occur
through narrow alluvial channels.

IMPACTS OF PROPOSED BOLO STATION LANDFILL ON GROUND WATER

DEVELOPMENT IN THE
CADIZ VALLEY AREA

INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS:

My name is Dennis Williams, I am the founder and president of GEOSCIENCE

Support Services, Inc. which was formed in 1978 to provide consulting to the
ground water industry. I have over 30 years of experience in ground water
consulting, specializing in ground water planning, development and
management, with specific emphasis on the ground water basins of Southern
California.

I received my B.S. in geology from the University of Redlands and advanced

degrees, M.S. and Ph.D., in ground water hydrology from the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. I am a registered geologist in the
State of California (No. 461) and a certified ground water hydrologist with
the American Institute of Hydrology (No. 355). I am an active member of the
American Water Works Association, a technical member of the National Water
Well Association and a member of the Orange County Water Association, the
San Bernardino County Association of Special Districts and the American
Institute of Hydrology.

My experience includes five years as an Engineering Geologist/Hydrologist

with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power where I developed a
master plan for the ground water development in the Owens Valley area. I
have also spent seven years in the middle and far east, consulting to the

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007
liner.html Page 9 of 9

governments of Iran, India and the United Nations on large-scale ground

water development projects.

Since 1978, I have been involved primarily in ground water consulting work
in Southern California where my clients include the major water districts
and agencies in the area. I am very familiar with ground water conditions
in San Bernardino County where I have performed numerous ground water
investigations.

I am also a part-time professor at the University of Southern California,

where I teach graduate level classes in geohydrology and ground water
modeling. I have authored numerous publications, including five chapters in
the book entitled "Handbook of Ground Water Development" published by John
Wiley and Sons in 1990.

| Images in Dr. Williams' Report

For more information and sources see THE BASICS OF LANDFILLS.

Return to Home Page / Debate Page Go to Waste Management Statement

Make a Public Comment or send us some e-mail

http://www.stopwmx.org/liner.html 12/18/2007